The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewLinh Dinh Archive
America as Religion
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Hong Kong, 2017

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

I just got off Skype with Kevin Barrett. Interviewed, I sat in the dusty office of our dustier plastic recycling plant. Truck horns and roosters crowing provided background noises. Though we covered many topics, I want to expand on just one, that of America as a religion.

Unless you’re a reactionary, assbackward asshole, you believe in progress, as in history definitely has an aim, and that’s to reach the Messianic Age, where there will be no more war, all races will be harmonious and equal (except one will be a tad more equal than the rest, because more circumcised and chosen) and Yahweh will beam his benevolence on your sorry ass, even if you’re goy as fuck. “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice,” so just keep on tearing down as you forge forward, comrades, and if you want a passing grade, don’t even try to argue against Moses, Marx and George Soros. All progressive visions are derived from Jewish messianism.

All of history, then, is a mere prologue and foreskin to the Messianic Age, just beyond the blood red horizon, and since America is the chest-thumping most advanced country on earth, not just with gadgets but ideas, America is the vanguard of this religion of progress. Though more threadbare by the second, this is a fitting mantle, since America has become Israel’s humongous schwanz.

America has even landed men on the moon six times, 225,623 miles away, without a glitch! Yes, it couldn’t rescue hostages from Iran or pretend to assassinate Bin Laden in Pakistan without crashing its helicopters and leaving a mess of charred corpses behind, but moon landings were much easier, you moron, because there were no Muslims there to spook the astronauts! As with the Holocaust and 9/11, we have photographic proofs! How can you argue with such impeccable photos, with the aperture, shutter speed and ISO just right? America hasn’t returned simply because the technology fell through the crack, and can’t be found again, even with a broom with an extra-long handle.

Just now, Ron Unz published “The Moon Landing: A Giant Hoax for Mankind?” by one MOON LANDING SKEPTIC, but on April Fools’ Day, and with a long disclaimer as the first comment. Though most commenters joined Ron in howling at the piece, Kevin Barrett, Godfree Roberts and Jonathan Revusky supported it, and I’d like to add my name to this list, for there are way too many obvious lies in the official story, and the photographs are clearly fake. Even with today’s cameras, with their compact sizes, large view finders and automatic focus, it’d be impossible to take so many perfectly framed and exposed photos in a row, without flops. Not one betrays even the slightest camera shake. Armstrong wasn’t so much the first man on the moon, as the first tripod.

ORDER IT NOW

In One Small Step? The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth from Space, Gerhard Wisnewski explains, “Of course one might understandably assume that what NASA has published and put on the Internet are only the best photos, with any amount of duds being omitted. But this is not the case. NASA has supplied the Internet with the complete first film supposedly shot by Neil Armstrong. The pictures are numbered consecutively with no gaps, and are shown under the heading: ‘Apollo 11 Hasselblad Film Magazine 40/S Unabridged – First Lunar EVA (digitally scanned by JSC in 2004 from original film roll).’ There are exactly 120 pictures – numbered from 5850 to 5970. Although a handful are ‘unintentional’ releases of the shutter, the ‘intentional’ ones are all perfect. In that sense none of the pictures on that film are failures.”

That’s impossible, even if Armstrong wasn’t shooting with a camera attached to his chest, with only the vaguest idea of what he was aiming at. If only I could photograph as well as Armstrong’s tits!

On top of this, you have Aldrin’s iconic footprint snapped from an impossible, downward angle; moon photos with clearly more than one light source, although no floodlights were lugged up from the earth; no crater on the lunar surface from the landing engine; no noise from the blasting rocket as Buzz Aldrin, seated just 16 inches away, communicated with Houston; no required minimal gaps of 2.6 seconds on several radio exchanges; and my favorite, Charles Duke leaving a plastic wrapped snapshot of his family on the moon surface, so he could photograph it. What a heartwarming moment or, should I say, a heartmelting farce, since it’s 212 degrees Fahrenheit up that way! The inconsistencies, lies and absurdities multiply, and Wisnewski does a very good job of elucidating them, in clear, measured prose, so do check out his book if you’re interested in examining this controversy in good faith.

Calling the Apollo spacecraft “a bucket of bolts,” Gus Grissom openly expressed his doubts about its imminent landing on the moon, and for this frankness, Gus and two other astronauts were roasted in Apollo 1, in an act of sabotage, many believe, caused by a short circuit, with lots of Velcro stuffed in there to stoke the flames, a genuine holocaust. As fire broke out, the hatch wasn’t opened immediately, and doctors arrived late, only to be falsely told that the men were already dead. Their suspicious deaths were not investigated by the police or the FBI but NASA itself, and the agency predictably concluded that it was just an accident.

Inspecting the wreck, Gus Grissom’ son, Scott, found “a plate that fitted exactly underneath the switch exactly where all the cables from that switch were located. It was obvious that the plate should not have been there, for its effect was to short-circuit all the cables regardless of whether the switch was set at ‘On’ or at ‘Off.’” Having located the smoking gun, Scott Grissom did not suspect NASA but the Soviets!

In a decade that saw the oddly explained deaths of JFK, RFK, Lee Harvey Oswald, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, etc., Grissom’s is just another, minor example. Moreover, American history is filled with thousands of bizarre and murky incidents, as in 9/11, but if most of its population, including all its leading intellectuals, are willing to go along with any preposterous story, why should the deep state worry? The few who do pipe up are invisible and impotent.

Though the Apollo spacecraft had 20,000 malfunctions in December, 1966, it had no problems landing on the moon on July 16, 1969, beating Kennedy’s absurdly confident deadline by five months, but how dare you doubt the universe’s greatest country ever?

MOON LANDING SKEPTIC, “Indeed, travelling to the moon and coming back alive is a feat of mythical proportions. It is tantamount to travelling to the Other World and coming back to the world of the living with your physical body. That makes the NASA astronauts the equals of ancient supernatural heroes, immortal demi-gods, and that semi-divine quality reflects on the USA as a whole. Such was the significance of the Apollo moon landings: it was about a new world religion that elevated the United States above all other earthly nations.”

Landing on the moon, the US redeemed itself and pushed into the shadow a decade of riots, assassinations, war crimes and moral degeneracy. As the country sinks to new depths, many Americans are now mesmerized by Elon Musk’s promise of life on Mars, “Once you can get there the opportunities are immense. So we’re going to do our best to get you there and then make sure there is an environment in which entrepreneurs can flourish; and then I think it’ll be amazing.” Meanwhile, Musk’s cars on earth explode, his stocks sink and the conman may even go to jail. Yes, it is very human to dream of flying ever higher, but to wish to live on a distant, inhospitable planet where nothing is meant for your kind betrays not hope, but a profound despair and a near total lack of imagination.

America’s most enduring export has been its image. Self-infatuated, it seduces everyone into worshipping its self-portrait. In 1855, Walt Whitman wrote, “The United States themselves are essentially the greatest poem,” then set out to define this “greatest poem” to the rest of the world, a monumental achievement. In 2005, Harold Pinter said, “I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self-love. It’s a winner.”

The farther you are from the US, the more mythical it becomes. Here in Ea Kly, most people have never been to Saigon, much less California, New York or Las Vegas, so their faith in the US can become childishly fanatical. This week, I met three brothers who still regret not jumping on a boat to escape, forty years ago. Every Vietnamese they know who ended up in the US had become fabulously rich, they insisted, and they cited a man who returned to build a road for his village as a typical example.

These aborted boat people looked at me with scorn when I told them there are plenty of poor Americans, with many in such despair they drug themselves to death, and life in the US is often a very lonely experience, even for the native-born, with roots going back generations. I was besmirching these naïfs’ religion.

A man in his 40’s asked me if wife swapping is common in the US. As evidenced by every movie and music video, America is this insanely sexed up place where everybody is always jumping into everybody else’s bed, not the land of widespread porn addiction, compulsive masturbators, bitter divorcees, smart phone exhibitionism, paid cuddlers and the never married growing old alone.

A woman told me that she had a friend in the US who was making “only” $2,400 a month, “How can you live on so little?”

“Many Americans make less than that,” I answered. “I sure did most of my time there.”

She looked amused. She had no idea most Americans have to pay around 20% of their incomes on taxes, and that housing and transportation costs eat up half of their paychecks.

Most people in Ea Kly have never even seen an American. In the next town, Krong Buk, there’s a white resident, the only one in a 30 mile radius. Most of his neighbors know him as simply ông Tây, Mr. Westerner, though some do call by his first name, Peter.

A man said to Peter, “Merci, madame,” the only Western phrase he knew.

Most have no idea that Peter is actually Swiss, and not American, but he’s rich enough, by local standards, so he’s more or less an American.

White people are rich, live in fabulous countries, travel all over and can suddenly show up even in Krong Buk to buy a nice piece of land by the lake, build an elegant house, with a guest bungalow next to it. Whereas the locals only fish in this lake, the white man swims daily, for he knows how to enjoy life.

The apex of whiteness, though, is the United States of America, a country that didn’t just drop seven million tons of bombs on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, as well as 20 million gallons of herbicides, mostly Agent Orange, but sent twelve tall, clean cut and good intentioned white men to the moon, a transcendental feat that’s still unequaled after half a century, and it’s a safe bet that neither the Russians, Chinese nor anyone else will be able to accomplish this for a while, maybe ever. Of course, Americans can return to the moon tomorrow if they want to, but they’re already looking way beyond it.

As New York, Chicago, Miami, Houston, Denver, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles become covered with feces from homeless Americans, American colonies will be set up not just on Mars, but Venus, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, in whatever order, for they’re all as near as Hollywood, or your computer, assuming you’ll still have one.

A gender fluid American astronaut will place a laminated printout of his virtual spouse on the surface of the sun. “USA! USA!” many of us will chant.

If progress is good, then accelerated progress is even better, for it will get us to the Messianic Age faster. Tradition is an albatross, so unmoor yourself and worship speed. Since history is linear, with a clear aim, your heritage gets darker and more embarrassing the further back you go, so tear it down and don’t look back.

In old Europe, the religion of progress is challenged and counterbalanced by many reminders of its magnificent past, and I’m not even talking about, say, Brunelleschi’s Dome and Giotto’s Tower in Florence, but the gravitas of your centuries-old village church, if it’s still standing and not destroyed in a World War, or converted into a cafe or bookshop. Your average English lychgate is more handsome than the nearest skyscraper.

When I taught at the University of Leipzig in 2015, I would daily pass the Paulinum, a brand new, grand and rather ugly edifice built in roughly the shape of the Paulinerkirche, a 13th century church dynamited by the Communists in 1968, and it pains me just to type that. Well, maybe it was just some run-of-the-mill 700-year-old church, and probably not in that great a shape, so who gives a shit, you may be thinking, but Martin Luther rechristened it in 1545 and Johann Sebastian Bach was its music director for festal services in 1723−25. Mendelssohn conducted there in 1837, and it hosted his funeral in 1847. Now, why would Communists blow up such a monumental repository of Leipzig’s history? Because they’re progressives, of course!

Luckily, there are no 700-year-old churches in the USA to block our views of the new Walmart, Costco, Home Depot or Hooters! The settler, pioneer, immigrant and refugee spirit propels Americans and demands fresh beginnings ad infinitum. America, then, is the perfect embodiment of the religion of progress, and its greatest rocket, until it explodes, as most rockets do.

Linh Dinh’s latest book is Postcards from the End of America. He maintains a regularly updated photo blog.

 
Hide 804 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. anon[227] • Disclaimer says:

    this is my favorite column on Unz

    • Replies: @Thulean Friend
  2. Biff says:

    The Power of Denial

    The idea of America as a great world religion presents Americans with an existential paradox, which Bellah surely understood when he wrote in 1967 — and it is this:

    No Universalist faith in full flood can see itself as just another religion. Other blueprints for life, those that came before, may be ignorant and wrong-headed, or perhaps the best of them may indeed foreshadow God’s final vision for humankind. But now they are all, overturned. The Final Word has arrived.

    • Replies: @jeff stryker
  3. Thomm says:

    and I’d like to add my name to this list, for there are way too many obvious lies in the official story, and the photographs are clearly fake.

    Which leads to :

    American colonies will be set up not just on Mars, but Venus, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, in whatever order,

    I am not sure if Linh Dinh is being facetious, but as anyone with a basic level of astronomical knowledge knows, you cannot land on the surface of a gas giant.

    I find that strident Moon Hoaxers often know extremely little about astronomy. That does not help their case.

  4. Tusk says:
    @Thomm

    I find that strident Moon Hoaxers often know extremely little about astronomy. That does not help their case.

    Linh is clearly being sarcastic. Perhaps he should have argued for colonies on the Sun so you got the point he was trying to make.

  5. Thomm you seem a bit umm- how do I say, confused… the entire article was facetious and he was taking the piss the whole time.

    The first part you quotes goes hand in glove with the second. Clearly hyperbole and snark aren’t your thing. But the entire article is about the ludicrous tall tales of the American religion. So why would a little problem like solid ground on a gas giant be any challenge? Team America baby, FUCK YEAH!

  6. swamped says:

    “She had no idea most Americans have to pay around 20% of their incomes on taxes, and that housing and transportation costs eat up half of their paychecks”…sadly, many Americans have no idea how to cover all their exorbitant housing & transportation costs on only half of their paycheck either – especially after taxes of all kinds which take a petty shady accounting to keep at around 20% – not in feces-covered New York, Chicago, Miami, Houston, Denver, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles, et.al., anyway.
    Maybe that’s why “the farther you are from the US, the more mythical it becomes”….”As evidenced by every movie and music video, America is this insanely sexed up place where everybody is always jumping into everybody else’s bed, not the land of widespread”…#MeToo hysteria, Biden shaming & Kavanaugh framing; such that America really is this insanely de-sexed place where everybody is always jumping on anyone who even mentions anything to do with (heterosexual) sex. Which in most American’s minds is unspeakably worse than dropping “seven tons of bombs on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, as well as 20 million gallons of herbicides, mostly Agent Orange”.
    “America, then, is the perfect embodiment of the religion of progress, and its greatest rocket, until it explodes”… as most American rockets do -and are designed to do – on someone else.

    • Replies: @Sin City Milla
  7. A fine assessment of that demonic heartland known as the USA. The more one probes into accepted ‘history’ the more one discovers what a world of lies we live in. That the creatures who run America would foist such a gigantic hoax as the ‘moon landings’ on humanity should not surprise us. I’ve come to the conclusion that almost everything they present to us is a hoax to some extent. The commenter above, Thomm, obviously doesn’t understand irony or sarcasm. Why not claim that you’ve landed on the sun or Jupiter? The cattle will believe it anyway if you give them half way decent graphics as ‘proof’. They believe all the other outrageous hoaxes and lies that have been foisted on them. However, Nature tolerates insane and destructive behaviour for only so long. Even God’s precious pets, the self-chosen, will sooner or later be brought to justice for their vast litany of crimes committed over millennia. Perhaps, as another blogger has stated, it’s all for the purpose of demonstration. The blow back will be so terrible that humanity will have it seared into its collective memory and mend its ways. Best regards.

    • Agree: bluedog
    • Replies: @Johann
    , @Steve Naidamast
  8. Is that at typo where you suggest the USA dropped only 7 tons of bombs on Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos?? The figure is closer to 7 million tons on Vietnam alone actually. 7,000,000 a wee bit more than 7 I think we can agree.

    • Replies: @Linh Dinh
    , @MarkinPNW
  9. Franz says:

    But what happens when the Vietnamese are told that millions of Americans worship a “chosen people” (that is not them) and a “holy land” (that most Americans never afford to visit)?

    Sad people, poor Americans. They have the whole world in thrall and all they get is a lousy drug overdose. Goes with the job, I guess.

    • Replies: @Robert Johnson
  10. Franz says:

    I am not sure if Linh Dinh is being facetious,

    Yes, because Ayn Rand made the same wisecrack 50 years ago.

    Rand said, If we’re going to get robbed blind anyway, why not plant a flag on Jupiter and wherever else, just to let the universe know we existed once.

    Gloomy people are facetious in gloomy ways. They are often more right than Positive Thinkers, I have come to discover.

  11. Linh, great piece as always.

    Some of your cadence and prosody reminds me of the great Fred Seidel. Are you a fan?

    Me
    by Frederick Seidel

    The fellow talking to himself is me,
    Though I don’t know it. That’s to say, I see
    Him every morning shave and comb his hair
    And then lose track of him until he starts to care,
    Inflating sex dolls out of thin air
    In front of his computer, in a battered leather chair
    That needs to be thrown out . . . then I lose track
    Until he strides along the sidewalk on the attack
    With racist, sexist outbursts. What a treat
    This guy is, glaring at strangers in the street!
    Completely crazy but not at all insane.
    He’s hot but there’s frostbite in his brain.
    He’s hot but freezing cold, and oh so cool.
    He’s been called a marvelously elegant ghoul.

    Full poem here:
    https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/89532/me-57474615b8bd1

    • Replies: @Linh Dinh
    , @mcohen
  12. Anonymous [AKA "DrMichael"] says:

    Terrific article Linh. Love your writing!

  13. Tom says:

    Lihn, Thank you for writing your wonderfully, insightful articles on Unz. They make my day!

  14. I wonder what Linh would make of Andrew Yang running for president on the UBI–Universal Basic Income.

    Here is Yang on ABC news.

    Here is Yang with Ben Shapiro.

    • Replies: @anon
  15. Linh Dinh says: • Website
    @Rabbitnexus

    Hi Rabbitnexus,

    Yes, a typo. I meant 7 million tons.

    Linh

    • Replies: @Rev. Spooner
  16. republic says:

    and for this frankness, Gus and two other astronauts were roasted in Apollo 1, in an act of sabotage,

    LS, I generally like your writing, but this comment takes the cake. I mean,the US government is capable of great evil, but to state that Gus was rubbed out in such a high profile way is beyond comprehension. Hope that the stuff that you are drinking out there has not been contaminated.

  17. Linh Dinh says: • Website
    @Anonmalayexp

    Hi Anonmalayexp,

    I’ve actually never heard of Fred Seidel!

    I admire Kafka, Borges, Orwell and Whitman above all, but also Celine, Stevens, Houellebecq, Milosz, Kundera, Waugh, Hemingway, Ho Bieu Chanh, Nguyen Huy Thiep, Norman Lewis, Rabelais and Rimbaud. Of American poets still alive, I’ve read hundreds, but I can’t say I’m influenced by any of them, except for maybe a whiff of John Ashbery. The late Etheridge Knight’s life influenced me, but not his poetry. Erasmus’ In Praise of Folly made a strong impression when I read it as a young man, and so did Ecclesiastes. I also went through a Simone Weil phase.

    Linh

  18. anon[170] • Disclaimer says:
    @Si1ver1ock

    a lot of money pushing this shapiro clown

    his following is inorganic

  19. Tsigantes says:

    Thank you for another wonderful article. And thank you for noticing this:

    In old Europe, the religion of progress is challenged and counterbalanced by many reminders of its…. past

    (I even took out ‘magnificent’)
    This is quietly and indubitably true and bless you for understanding it.

  20. Thank you for the clarity of the obvious, that the masses are too ignorant to see.

  21. As New York, Chicago, Miami, Houston, Denver, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles become covered with feces from homeless Americans, American colonies will be set up not just on Mars, but Venus, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, in whatever order, for they’re all as near as Hollywood, or your computer, assuming you’ll still have one.

    I used to live in Houston and for all practical purposes there is not a homeless problem and I never once saw a human fecal deposit anywhere. When the temperature drops below twenty degrees three-four times a year the city sends vans around to pick up every homeless person they can find around sunset so that nobody has to sleep out in the cold.

    Pretty shocking, no? I certainly was surprised when I heard about the vans on the news. If you can take the heat June-September Houston is a pretty chill place to be homeless.

  22. feel like I just listened to a 2:30 am voicemail.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  23. Anonymous[391] • Disclaimer says:

    Thanks Mr. Dinh. Your grasp of the delights (many of which may be fake) and horrors of the American condition is awe-inspiring and unmatched. For many zealous American patriots, you must surely come across as an unmitigated ingrate.

    America’s most enduring export has been its image. Self-infatuated, it seduces everyone into worshipping its self-portrait.

    True of the excessively narcissistic aspect of American culture. But America as religion begs the question of America’s god complex. Gods as omnipotent deities are invented as originators of religion — their raison d’être, in a bizarre mutually reciprocal fashion, i.e. religion then reinventing and refashioning god.

    America projects itself as god to inferior races and the disciples slavishly worship and submit. America is god, prophet, messiah and messenger rolled into one. America as religion is aggressively proselytized by it’s literature, culture and the MSM. As with other divine entities, reward and punishment await those who submit or resist respectively with terrestrial heaven (token aid, or simply being left to your own devices) or hell (invasion, occupation, bombs, drones, crippling sanctions) thrown into the mix.

    Yet as you so well point out, America is the schwanz of yet another more powerful god (Israel) in a rare instance of divine omnipotence requiring an even superior omnipotence to wag.

    …and life in the US is often a very lonely experience, even for the native-born, with roots going back generations.

    Bingo!

  24. Truth says:

    Good piece Linhjo. I enjoyed it so much I read it twice (to find something to ridicule)! I was unsuccessful.

    • Replies: @Linh Dinh
  25. @Tusk

    I dunno … if any country can land on the surface of a gas giant, it would be the USA.

  26. Charles says:

    Moon hoaxers can, if they want, go to Phil Plait’s BadAstronomy webpage. Most any question (Why no stars? Why no lunar dust on takeoff? How did the pictures come out so clearly? Why is the US flag waving on the Moon? What about the Van Allen belts?) is answered. I realize this will not deter a committed Hoaxer, but an intelligent person wanting to understand how the Moon landing was accomplished will learn much.

  27. “Even with today’s cameras, with their compact sizes, large view finders and automatic focus, it’d be impossible to take so many perfectly framed and exposed photos in a row, without flops.”

    Quite the opposite, Linh: Today’s cameras and electronic capture make “Spray and Pray” photography painless and relatively costless. In the days of lunar exploration, when you still had to carry a limited stock of film that then had to be expensively processed, you tended to be a lot more careful in composing your shots and setting your exposures. I’m sure NASA would have even sent Annie Liebovitz to the moon to get great shots, but she was a woman and all that, and they didn’t have the budget for the appropriate plumbing for girls on the moon.

    Why, because of the expense of videotape, NASA even felt a compelling need to erase and re-use all the tapes of the Apollo 11 lunar excursion; but for that, we’d surely see how real it was.

  28. @Franz

    Every cargo cult throws up fanciful belief systems passed off as true ‘religion’ that can best be maintained by regular deliveries of loot restoring faith and if not, a barrage of symbolism, the hired help of a high priesthood and a mercenary standing army. The formula has been this way since Paleolithic reciprocity gave way to Neolithic redistribution and big men stopped being altruistic. Simple hick eusociality of our genesis gave way to complex ingroup eusociality, a strategy tweak so untested in human history it has brought us artifacts like war by deception and MAD. One of the main functions of a redistributive hierarchy is to kill or deicide previous genuine religions and to counterfeit the pagan deities as their polar opposites aka satan. So long as the cargo keeps coming the “faithful” will believe almost anything, because they are circumscribed or trapped spatially.

    The American progressive religion was always based on Old Testament Judaeo Christianity or messianity. It was financed by it at the top of its social hierarchy from day one, which soon coincided with the Illuminati era of national reorganization. The first Puritans debated making Hebrew the official language of Salem (Jerusalem). It is true that in the 1750s the colonists issued their own currency outside the tribal system in power since coinage and ironmongering began. They experienced a rush of prosperity, but their sovereignty phenomenon was quickly stamped out so that by the time of the Constitutional Convention no proscriptions against a noahide order were installed as language to prevent the new nation’s immediate loss of its sovereignty to its foreign creditor. Let Congress decide, not law, and Congress will be bought as Rothschild said at the time. It is clear that the master political strategists of the last three millenia knew full well the power of America to found their dream of a messianic age, while typical goyim were too busy solving the musical chairs of foreign debt based finance, robbing Peter to pay Paul.

    As a solution to three thousand years of living under a dirty boot, many attempts have been made in America from Jackson to Mcphadden to JFK to put sovereign nationhood back in the saddle instead of keeping the herd enthralled by cargo that while titillating in its latest iterations never seems to satisfy the craving of humanity for something real. Asymmetric attempts too were made, and not forgotten by some. All attempts have failed, so that now America goes willingly into its cattle chute finale subverted by the ultimate political scientists operating its old city on the hill scam.

    While in Asia now there is widespread belief in the cult of American style prosperity, it’s obvious if you just look around in China and India, the most populous nations, as I did recently, that people chase money and honey without even seeing the world around them, which they rapidly trash, while in America, the people who should have spoken up long ago about the noahide dance now gaslight the few who understand. Obviously there is so much more loot in America still compared to Asia that the religious attraction of its cargo cult will endure to the bitter end.

    So, yeah perspicacious Mr. Dinh, get ready for a rough moon landing when the messiah appears with his market of the beast. You got that right.

    One of the best ways to wake people up from trance enslavement is to puncture the absurdities they live by and swear on. Voltaire had it right when he said those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Justvisiting
  29. Ron Unz says:

    Well, I’m absolutely no expert on photography and can’t really say whether the 1969 Moon landing photos are “too good to be true.” But personally, I don’t think that’s really much of an issue.

    As I argued in the previous Moon Hoax article, it wouldn’t really be so totally surprising if the actual photos came out blurry or otherwise bad, so the NASA people had someone in their photo department touch them up or even fabricate them so as to avoid public embarrassment on the public results of their gigantic $150 billion undertaking. A simple “white lie” like that might only involve a handful of individuals and wouldn’t have been so difficult to keep secret.

    For example, a few years ago a book came out revealing that some of the most famous war photos of the Spanish Civil War had actually been faked. But I’d hardly take that as strong evidence that the Spanish Civil War never happened.

  30. anon[350] • Disclaimer says:
    @Robert Johnson

    The first Puritans debated making Hebrew the official language of Salem (Jerusalem)

    interesting

    leads me to thinking about the Salem Witch Trials, a big deal no doubt, and also Salem Broadcasting with (((Dennis Prager))), (((Michael Medved))) and similar pro-israel types

    • Replies: @Robert Johnson
  31. @simple_pseudonymic_handle

    Try Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Francisco, and Seattle for MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND homeless people between them, and plenty of urine, feces, drug needles, and trash for MILES and MILES (not just “blocks and blocks” anymore).

  32. @Ron Unz

    A better debunking site: clavius.org; has excellent commentary on the photographic nonsense.

    “Indeed, travelling to the moon and coming back alive is a feat of mythical proportions. It is tantamount to travelling to the Other World and coming back to the world of the living with your physical body.”

    That’s all in your head, moonskeptics. It was an engineering problem and they solved it.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
  33. Linh Dinh says: • Website
    @Truth

    Yo Truth,

    Whiteys went to the moon a bunch of times and didn’t even allow African Americans to sit at the back of a rocket, not once!, but isn’t that just like Whiteys? Always so selfish and mean. Luckily, Hollywood has shown us the truth that three African American bitches enabled the moon landings in the first place! Thank Yahweh for Hollywood.

    Linh

    • Replies: @Biff
  34. Dumbo says:
    @Sterling Archer

    “That’s all in your head, moonskeptics. It was an engineering problem and they solved it.”

    I never had doubted the moon landing, but lately, given the amount of BS that the US gov’t just churns out and expects EVERYONE to believe (9/11, Iraq WMDs, Bin Laden “buried at sea”, etc etc) I am starting to really doubt almost anything that US media and government tell.

    There are a lot of inconsistencies in the stories about the moon landings, I am not a specialist by any means, but some things seem just ridiculous, for instance sending humans in a contraption to land in the moon and ascend from there without ever having tested it before. What if it failed? Why not try landing and ascent without humans before? I mean usually that’s what you’d do.

    Plus, if it was just an “engineering problem” and they “solved it” almost 50 years ago, how come no one else ever has gone to the moon again or even attempted it with the far superior technology of today. Yes, I know, there are many possible answers to that, however, the more time passes without a return the less believable it becomes, if by 2072 (100 years later) there are no manned returns to the moon, I doubt anyone will believe humans really made it the first time. The proof is in the repetition.

    • Replies: @Patricus
  35. I don’t know. You can watch them float around in the Space Station for hours at a time on the NASA channel. I kind of have a feeling the Space Station is real. I think you can even see it with a small telescope. Now, if they can construct and operate a Space Station, I imagine they could manage a moon landing. I mean, once you’re in outer space, I imagine the rest is pretty easy.

    • Replies: @gepay
    , @Rabbitnexus
  36. Biff says:
    @Linh Dinh

    Whiteys went to the moon a bunch of times and didn’t even allow African Americans to sit at the back of a rocket, not once!,

    Bam! Right in the ribs. A few more of these, and you could’ve floored’em at the comedy store.

  37. gepay says:
    @obwandiyag

    I was surprised to learn that the Space station is in a low earth orbit. below the Van Allen belts. Nobody after has gone past the Van Allen belts – the hardest part for me to believe is that everything worked perfectly for the 6 missions .
    I think the photos are faked (none of the astronauts were even photo buffs as far as I have read) but as noted that doesn’t mean the missions never happened. I am still an agnostic on whether they were faked but lean towards thinking they were. I am waiting for the Chinese to send an unmanned rover to the “landing sites”.

    • Replies: @a German
    , @Alfa158
  38. MarkinPNW says:
    @Rabbitnexus

    Yea, a ton here, a ton there, eventually it can add up to real megatonage.

  39. @Ron Unz

    I can’t make up my mind but I agree the pictures themselves being faked, which I think is fairly undeniable after looking at it all, is not necessarily reason alone to doubt they went. The recent discovery that the Moon is in fact inside the Earth’s atmosphere by a considerable margin literally in the middle, also makes me feel easier about certain other questions. I suspect the Van Allen Belt may be the thing not understood as well as Moon hoaxers assume. It is also not outside the realms of possibility that the pictures were faked for a reason other than poor quality. Another ‘rumour’ has it that they went there alright and what they found was so fundamentally paradigm changing that it could not be shown, namely ET bases and presence etc. This one also claims this as the reason they’ve not been back.

    I’m open to any combination that doesn’t require me to believe the pictures are all legit. The older I get the more I’d not put anything past the ‘powers that be’ when it comes to lying to us.

    • Replies: @Truth
  40. @obwandiyag

    There’s no reason to doubt the ISS. You can even see it from earth with binoculars or better yet a telescope. It is however a far cry from the distance to the moon. That thing is barely in orbit. In fact it is slowly falling to earth. There are satellites much further away from earth than the ISS.

  41. “Unless you’re a reactionary, assbackward asshole”

    Well that would be me then.

  42. The scalpel says: • Website
    @Thomm

    “You cannot land on the surface of a gas giant.”

    It was a typo. He meant your anus (certainly a gas giant) and one could land on that though it would take a precise aim.

    :-). Had to say it, I know everyone was thinking it.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  43. @Ron Unz

    Well, I’m absolutely no expert on photography and can’t really say whether the 1969 Moon landing photos are “too good to be true.” But personally, I don’t think that’s really much of an issue.

    To me, the above is a jaw-dropping statement. You’re saying that, if the photographic record of the moon landings can be shown to be fake, then that is not an issue and we could still be sure they went to the moon…

    That is pretty counter-intuitive, Ron. It has me wondering how one could deconstruct the reasoning by which you arrive at such a bizarre conclusion.

    Okay, let’s see… please correct me when I say something that is incorrect….

    For starters, as best I can tell, the A-1-A reason that the general public believes that these moon landings took place is because of the visuals that were presented to them. So, prima facie it is really quite bizarre to claim that it is of little importance whether said visuals are authentic are not… But… besides that, surely common sense says that, once you have established that one thing is faked, then it is reasonable to start wondering what other things were faked, no? (N.B. That does not prove that other aspects were faked, but a reasonable person would start thinking along those lines… So it would certainly yes be “an issue”.)

    Once you have caught somebody trying to pull one fast one on you, then you wonder what else they are trying to pull. Yet, your position is that, even if it is established that they engaged in blatant fakery with the photography, this is of no importance…

    Hmm….

    Well, the really core problem in all this, Ron, is that, in this whole matter, you’re engaging in backward reasoning. You’re deciding what you want to believe and then reasoning backwards to support that belief. You’re not engaging in the facts and reasoning forward to arrive at a conclusion. You’re starting with the conclusion and reasoning backwards.

    Now, actually, it isn’t that you just start with the conjecture that men went to the moon, but actually a far stronger position, which would be:

    It is so utterly obvious that men went to the moon that anybody who doubts this is self-evidently crazy and there is no onus on me to even consider what they are saying.

    And then you “confirm” this to yourself by cherry picking the handful of people who believe the moon landings were a hoax who are also flat earthers or whatever. (And meanwhile, you totally ignore the countervailing fact that among the people who believe in the moon landings, there are also people who believe a lot of utterly nutty things, so the “argument”, such as it is, cuts both ways anyway.)

    In any case, having demonstrated to your satisfaction that moon landing deniers are all nutters (not just the small minority of flat earthers among them) you then take the position that there is now no onus on you to consider what they are saying.

    It’s really, properly understood, a grand circular argument.

    1. Men definitely walked on the moon. Fo’ sho’

    2. It is so obvious that men walked on the moon that anybody who doubts this is self-evidently crazy. (Cherry pick the occasional flat earther to reinforce your point…)_

    3. Since anybody who doubts this story must be insane, there is no need for me to consider anything they say.

    Of course, the above argumentation is fallacious for a variety of reasons. (Argument from incredulity, begging the question, appeal to authority,…) One could go on about this endlessly, I suppose, but I think the biggest problem is that it involves just ignoring the first order problem:

    Regardless of whether men walked on the moon, there are strong prima facie reasons to doubt it.

    The fact remains that, for this story to be true, it means that men traveled something like 240,000 miles into outer space and landed on the moon, yet, leaving aside those Apollo missions of nearly half a century ago, no manned space flight has ever gone more than a few hundred miles from the earth.

    Just in relative proportions, it is more believable that an individual who has never completed a one mile run could run a marathon! And actually, to be a closer analogy, he doesn’t just run the marathon, but sets a record that still stands half a century later!

    It is exactly as if Columbus had sailed to the New World and, in the subsequent 50 years, nobody had sailed more than ten miles off the coast!

    It would be more believable, if Linh Dinh, a man who gets visibly out of breath climbing a fairly minor hill (at sea level!) one day scaled Mount Everest without any intervening training climbing lesser peaks. (And again, nobody in the subsequent half a century has climbed Everest since Linh did it!)

    So, there is a refusal to engage in the very basic reasons why somebody would look at the Apollo missions skeptically. No! Your stance is that the only reason that anybody could doubt this is that they suffer some sort of mental disorder.

    Now, given the a priori problems with the narrative, if it then became clear that the photographic record was just a fabrication, I don’t know how a reasonable person could say that this is of “no real importance”.

    We also have these bizarre claims that NASA had the technology to go to the moon in 1969 but currently does not. We have this Don Pettit character claiming that he would love to go to the moon, but “we no longer have the technology”.

    This is like little Johnny saying he did his Math homework but somehow lost it. (The dog ate it or whatever.) Johnny would love to do the same homework (that he claims to have already done before) but…. in the intervening time, he forgot how to do it.

    Now, it is one thing to believe that little Johnny really did his homework, but your position is more extreme. For you, it is so self-evident that he did his homework that it is self-evidently crazy to doubt it. If it turns out that little Johnny is subsequently caught in a lie, like he says the family dog ate his homework but his family does not have a dog… then that still doesn’t matter….

    Well, in closing, it is really highly problematic to build an argument based on the thesis that other people are self-evidently crazy. You know, Ron, self-observation is inherently problematic and thus, we can’t objectively resolve who is being nutty, ourselves or the other person!

    Regardless, to say “You guys are obviously nuts” is not a valid argument. Actually, it’s not even an argument at all!

    • Agree: Kevin Barrett
  44. @Tusk

    Linh is clearly being sarcastic. Perhaps he should have argued for colonies on the Sun so you got the point he was trying to make.

    Futurama did it in its first season, with condos on the Sun being a rather hot real estate value.

  45. @Robert Johnson

    Cargo cult is a wonderful description. Television (and now other video) is a great medium to deliver lies 24/7.

    I watched the moon landing as a naive teenager. I remember telling my grandmother the next day: “Yesterday was the greatest day in human history. We just landed on the moon.”

    Grandma looked me straight in the eye and said: “That did not happen. Never believe anything you see on television.”

    That must have been her secret–she lived in excellent health until she passed on at the age of 106.

    • Replies: @Robert Johnson
    , @Sunshine
  46. Ron Unz says:

    I’m afraid that the original Moon Hoax comment-thread has gotten so enormous that it’s becoming very difficult to load, so I’ve had to shut it down and notify Moon Hoax zealots to relocate their debate to this new article instead:

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing-a-giant-hoax-for-mankind/#comment-3143856

    I’ll also take this opportunity to republish my comment highlighted the extremely fair position taken by “Moon Landing Skeptic” in his final summary remarks, which I fully endorse:

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing-a-giant-hoax-for-mankind/#comment-3141272

    the majority, like me, have a curious and logical mind but no special expertise, and our conviction relies primarily on common sense applied to photographic and video evidence..

    Are you all cowards? Are you all liars? Where is your honor, your dedication to the truth? What about those retired scientists who have only their reputation to lose?…he has the right to expect some courage from those hundreds of thousands or scientists who know the moon landings were faked but don’t care and won’t speak out… We do need, absolutely, an association of “Engineers and Scientists for Apollo Truth” of some sort, to make a difference.

    Well, I think that’s an extremely fair—actually a rather generous—summary of the ongoing debate.

    Basically, the Moon Hoax people admit they have no technical expertise and are relying upon their “common sense” that the 1969 Moon landing was “scientifically impossible.”

    Meanwhile, they readily acknowledge that there are “hundreds of thousands” of scientists who are certainly aware of the Moon Hoax, but not a single one of these has ever publicly admitted it.

    Personally, once they manage to round up a couple of hundred astrophysicists and aerospace engineers to publicly endorse the Moon Hoax theory I’ll be very glad to spend some time carefully investigating it myself.

    Finally, a commenter pointed me to a very helpful debunking of Moon Hoaxery which a professional astronomer published on his website back in 2001:

    http://badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

    Apparently, his effort was aimed at rebutting a Moon Hoax conspiracy show that aired on the FoxTV network earlier that year, probably aimed at appealing to the X-Files audience.

    I’d note that back 18 years ago, a vastly larger number of Apollo participants were still alive and active. It seems to me that the apparent enthusiasm of Rupert Murdoch’s young TV network in attracting Moon Hoax ratings would have ensured that any NASA veteran who publicly came forward and endorsed the Moon Hoax would certainly become quite wealthy and famous. Yet not a single one of the many thousands did, which would seem difficult to explain if Moon Hoax theories had any factual basis.

    Furthermore, it sounds like all the key elements of the Moon Hoax book written a couple of years later by that German fellow, which were the basis of our Moon Hoax article, tend to follow remarkably closely the central arguments of the nationally-broadcast FoxTV program from 2001. So if the author didn’t directly cite and reference that television show, one might almost accuse him of having committed plagiarism.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    , @Peredur
  47. @Ron Unz

    …would have ensured that any NASA veteran who publicly came forward and endorsed the Moon Hoax would certainly become quite wealthy and famous.

    Yeah, and he might be rewarded with 72 virgins as well….

    • Replies: @Olivier1973
  48. @anon

    There was a brief discussion of Salem witchery recently with Adam Green and CJBjerknes.

    Witchery was another counterfeit of the messianic order. Prior to their role reversal of the old deities, Ishtar/Esther and wicca were more like Maria Sabina, who ironically also was tried as a witch under pressure from gringo Puritans fearful of the power of self realization to break the chain of command. Purim was purnima. Star of David was Sarasvati’s trikona. Symbols are power to hypnotise. All over India are swastikas. The magik comes in reversal of meanings and that results in an Orwellian dystopia, or like what Huxley said would be the brave new world, all appearance without substance.

    It gets confusing when both true and false people espouse ‘freedom’. One wants a Bill of Rights and the other wants to shag children as young as three, control the money supply, and never have to face a firing squad for 9/11.

    In the words of Christopher Bollyn, “If justice comes for 9/11……”

  49. Peredur says:
    @Ron Unz

    Meanwhile, they readily acknowledge that there are “hundreds of thousands” of scientists who are certainly aware of the Moon Hoax …

    What? That is ridiculous. Which commenters expressed this view? The point many of us kept making, and that Unz evidently kept ignoring, is that only a small number of people would have to know it was a hoax.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  50. @Justvisiting

    That’s beautiful, Just Visiting. It is entirely possible that Grandma was inherently sage in which case you have inherited some fraction of here sagacity, and hopefully longevity too. Viva.

    I’m not a fan of the fake opposition out there that uncritically repeats MSM storyline about ‘mass shootings’ which never happened (since around Sandy Hoax time). It’s all barely legal propaganda since repeal of Smith Mundt to monopolize force in the hands of the Rothschild mercenaries. Right from the start every serious person should investigate what MSM tells us. Examine the source and their intent. Grandma’s filter.

  51. Arioch says:

    Lunar Flight saga has many problematic places revolving around physics and engineering, including simple lack of energy that could be confined withing the limited dimensions of the officially used rocket to fly heavy enough object to the Moon orbit (would not start with spamming this thread with Rusisan-language links perhaps).

    Lunar Hoax saga equally has many problematic places, revolving around “how this hoax could possibly be done to everyone’s content, so that no one ever – neither in USA nor in USSR or China – would not want to expose it (with logic and facts, not with Hollywood innuendos). There is a difference though: the hoaxers seldom are required to provide so detailed and documented and rigorous explanations that they demand from flighters.

    However, the amount of photographs is hardly a real argument there. I think it is more like a false argument “planted” to hoaxers’ narrative to discredit it. Like the proverbial “melted and flown away steal beams” of 9-11 Three Twin Towers. The obviously stupid claim that truthers did not make, but that is spinned again and again and again.

    > Even with today’s cameras, with their compact sizes, large view finders and automatic focus,

    How is size relevant? How is view finder relevant for “action camera” that just “looks” the same direction as a man that wears it?

    How is focusing relevant for cameras that do not have to have focus at all?

    Did eveyrone suddenly forgot 1990-s and the abundant a dozen photo camera by Kodak that were caleld “soap boxes” in Russia?
    They did not have auto-focus. They did not have manual focus. They did not had any focus AT ALL.
    That made them so cheap and so easy to use without any education.
    And they were making quite good photos for their price.
    They immediatly outclasses all the “old school” cameras that had focus, diaphragm and all other buzz words. And that required you to cook the film in the total darkness in the night bathroom, and god forbid anyone would forget it and open the door or turn on the ligth. And week later you do the same to print (expose) from the film to the paper photographs. Very thrilling when you do it first time. Not so much when you can just buy no-any-focus-at-all 1$ “soap box” and then dump the filmroll to Kodak Lab.

    > it’d be impossible to take so many perfectly framed

    what was so perfect about that frame?

    > and exposed photos

    why? were lighting condition subject to abrupt and large changes?

    NASA cherry-picked cameras could not do in 1960-s what cameras from China could do in 1990-s?

    > Not one betrays even the slightest camera shake.

    Why should there be? Do you really think astronauts – be them on Moon or on Earth – were alcoholics who could not stand their feet?

    > Armstrong wasn’t so much the first man on the moon, as the first tripod.

    He and crew were not tripod. They were bipods. Officially.

    Really, there are many questionable things in Lunar story. On both sids of the dispute.
    But targeting amount of photographs (sure, just 2 weeks ago i had an argument that there are TOO many photos on flicker than one single man could made during his Moon walk, and so all those photos were fake) or their better than awful quality…
    It is not a low hanbging fruit. It is a distraction.

    • Agree: utu
  52. Mike P says:

    This is a reply to poster j2, continuing a discussion from the other, earlier thread that is now closed for comments.

    Hi Mike P. I would ask you to read this carefully, especially the last sentence. I tried Sabino’s calculation method. It is good.

    No, it is not, because Sabino uses the wrong data for low Earth orbit. On page 30 of his thesis, we read this:

    The orbit used to define the LEO conditions was chosen to be the ISS orbit because of its frequent use, this orbit is already precalculated in CREME so one does not need to set the orbital parameters.

    He does not trouble himself to actually list those orbital parameters, but wiki does:

    Perigee 403 km (250 mi)
    Apogee 408 km (254 mi)
    Orbital inclination 51.64 degrees

    This is a far cry from the orbits of the Apollo missions, most which were very close to 100 km high and 32 degrees inclination.

    As you know, both trapped radiation and galactic cosmic radiation increase very strongly with inclination, and trapped radiation also very strongly with altitude. Thus, Sabino’s radiation dosages for LEO will be far too high.

    I refer you yet again to Figure 3 by Maerki, which makes it clear that radiation in LEO for Apollo 11 was very much lower than in all other segments of its flight:

    The dosage for Apollo 9 would have corresponded only to that LEO portion (leftmost portion of the graph, below the actual scale). This is really all we need to know; about the shielding, we only need to assume that it was the same aboard Apollo 9 and 11, which means that it simply cancels out.

    Therefore, my point stands – the similarity of the reported radiation dosages aboard Apollo 9 and 11 contradicts the claim that Apollo 11 ever left Earth orbit. And also yet again, for those who still doubt it, here is NASA’s own direct evidence on this point:

    Go to minute 32 – enjoy.

    • Replies: @j2
  53. This is a response to commenter j2’s comment that appeared here:

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing-a-giant-hoax-for-mankind/#comment-3143776

    1. There is no technical objection why a lunar module could not have landed and taken off from the Moon.

    As far as I can see, this just begs the question. As best I understand what you are saying, it is basically: Sure, if they had the technology to land on and take off from the moon, then they could have done it.

    Well, I could say: If the ancient Romans had the technology to build a nuclear submarine or a jet airplane or whatever, then they could have built those things. (Except, obviously, they did not have the technology to build those things, so they didn’t…) I know that sounds silly, but I’m really getting at the issue that this borders on the tautological, no?

    I mean to say… you’re just dancing around the central question, aren’t you?

    Did they or didn’t they, at that point in time, have the technology to go to the moon and come back?

    Again, this is the crux of the matter. Now, granted, if you start with the unshakeable article of faith that they really went, then they must have had the technology. QED. But… on the other hand, if you end up gradually convincing yourself that they did not have the technology at the time, you must then accept that they did not go. QED.

    Which is it?

    Now, as I see it, there are facts staring us in the face that suggest that they didn’t have the technology at the time. Moreover, these facts are not really of any highly technical nature. Just for starters, they are openly admitting that they do not currently have the technology to go to the moon. (Don Pettit would go back in a “nanosecond” if they did… but they “lost” that technology…) So if they don’t have the technology to go there now, then is it believable that they did have the technology then? Is it credible that the Russians and Chinese have put off manned missions to the moon until the mid-2030’s because they cannot match something that the U.S. pulled off half a century ago!!??

    2. There is an unsolved problem of solar storms … (snip)… If Americans were in the Moon, they were there because they were lucky.

    Well, just how lucky is that? Can we quantify it? So they got “lucky” six times in a row!!??

    Well,…. maaaybeeee… but I don’t find this very compelling. I would point out, though maybe it’s only a detail, that the “luck” theory also implies not only that they were lucky, but that they did not realize how lucky they were. I mean, if they succeeded the first time, but realized subsequently that they only did so because they were outrageously lucky, then surely they would not have tempted fate by going back. (Especially since there is, as far as I can see, precious little value in going back once you’ve done it once.)

    3. Van Allen Belts are not a technical obstacle provided the spaceship has enough shielding..

    Well, to me, this is just a specific subcase of the first point, “Did they have the technology to do this?” Here, specifically, “Did they have this specific problem solved or not?
    If the answer is no, as you seem to be suggesting, then… (Of course, even if they had this specific problem solved, that does not imply that they had the technology for the overall mission, i.e. that they had solved this specific problem does not logically imply that they had solved every other problem. Again, it seems that a full half century later, their peer competitors China and Russia have still not solved all the various problems. So they are putting off their manned mission to the moon to the 2030’s. Go figure…)

    This is why it is possible that the landings were faked, but I cannot prove it from radiation dosage. And that explains why no space expert has come open to tell that the landings were fake. He cannot know for sure.

    Well, okay, you decline to express certainty. You’re a careful guy. I understand that. So let me phrase it in a way that falls short of absolute certainty:

    If you had to bet a moderately large sum of money on whether men went to the moon back then (obviously, the assumption is that the truth is revealed after the wager, maybe by God… it’s just a thought experiment…) how would you bet your money, Mr. j2?

    • Replies: @Willem
    , @j2
    , @j2
  54. Ron Unz says:
    @Peredur

    Meanwhile, they readily acknowledge that there are “hundreds of thousands” of scientists who are certainly aware of the Moon Hoax …

    What? That is ridiculous. Which commenters expressed this view? The point many of us kept making, and that Unz evidently kept ignoring, is that only a small number of people would have to know it was a hoax.

    Well, as I explicitly mentioned in my comment, I was merely quoting from the statement of “Moon Landing Skeptic,” the author of the Moon Hoax article under debate, summarizing his final position.

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing-a-giant-hoax-for-mankind/#comment-3141272

    Obviously, different Moon Hoax people have different opinions, but I’d say that expressed by the author of the article should be given considerable weight.

  55. Peredur says:
    @Ron Unz

    That is not the whole truth of the matter. In comment 1496 you wrote

    Meanwhile, they readily acknowledge that there are “hundreds of thousands” of scientists who are certainly aware of the Moon Hoax, but not a single one of these has ever publicly admitted it.

    There, you were making a statement about what you call “the Moon Hoax people.” In the quote for the current article, you

    It appears to me that Moon Landing Skeptic was at least partly talking how he understood your point of view when he wrote “he has the right to expect some courage from those hundreds of thousands or scientists who know the moon landings were faked”.

    The following quote from the original article suggests to me that Moon Landing Skeptic understands the role of compartmentalization of knowledge:

    Incidentally, Lundberg’s embarrassed admission is the perfect illustration of how compartmentalization may have made the moon hoax possible. Like the hundreds of thousands of people involved in the project, he worked on a “need to know” basis, and had no reason to suspect he was working for something else than what he was told

    I would like for Moon Landing Skeptic to clarify this. If he actually thinks that hundreds of thousands of scientists know the moon landings were faked, then I question his judgement, but I don’t think he actually thinks this and that when he wrote that he was not being very careful in his choice of words.

  56. Linh Dinh: “America, then, is the perfect embodiment of the religion of progress, and its greatest rocket, until it explodes, as most rockets do.”

    This is a fine sentence with which to end the article, as it resolves an equivocation that suffuses all that preceded. America has become the religion of the world only because it is the center of world progress, by which is meant primarily technological progress, and the moon landings are at the summit of her technological achievements. Certainly, without her technological prowess, America would never have attained or be able to continue her leadership in world affairs.

    Will the rocket of man’s technological achievement necessarily explode? There’s a prisoner in Supermax named Kaczynski who killed people to sound the alarm that it will. Likewise, the philosopher/sociologist Jacques Ellul made a career out of explaining why it must. Unfortunately for techno-skeptics like Linh Dinh, both men were largely ignored.

    Linh Dinh: “A gender fluid American astronaut will place a laminated printout of his virtual spouse on the surface of the sun. “USA! USA!” many of us will chant.”

    Technology is currently in a battle to the death with Nature in general and human nature in particular. When the technological millennium arrives, gender fluidity/transgenderism will be the norm and all of today’s supposedly intractable differences between races will be overcome. The faith is that these things can be resolved by technical means; approached and surmounted as any other technical challenge. The expected end is that man as he is today will finally disappear altogether, being absorbed into his machines, attaining technological nirvana. Paradoxically, it’s a future that many on both right and left look forward to with enthusiasm.

  57. apollonian says: • Website

    Inductive Logic–One Of Those “Stubborn” Things

    Consider the INDUCTIVE argument regarding the manned moon-landing hoax–for there’s no PROOF (if there is proof, then SAY what it is–no one does because no one can), and no compelling, substantial evidence which could be compiled and put together for an inductive argument tending to “proof.”

    For by definition, proof of any thesis is sense-perceptory, and that opportunity is gone; the “televised” antics of the astronauts could have been faked.

    So like in Archeaology scientists can only now try to search for evidence of some presence on the moon–which there is none. Sorry to bust bubbles, suckers, but there just isn’t any evidence for the “manned moon-landing”–get over it.

    And look at all the other evidence for lies, lying, hoaxes, hoaxing, fraud and scam. The central-bank is a legalized counterfeiting fraud, suckers, literally a criminal enterprise–see Mises.org; use their site search-engine for particular terms. But dumbshits can’t figure-out why fiat-currency is a fraud, and that’s why the US Fed continues.

    Note such gross fraud and criminal enterprise, which RULES everything else about the culture, even world-wide, renders a satanistic society, suckers–at least among those at the top and in the “know.”

    And anyone who keeps up w. economic statistics can tell ZOG slants those statistics grievously: they say un-employment in Jew S A is low, when it’s actually quite high. ZOG says (US) inflation is low, but it’s surely rather high and getting higher–on a hyper-inflationary course.

    Then there are all the other lies about the mass-shootings, including Sandy hoax, the latest Mosque shootings in New Zealand, etc., etc.–lies, lies, and constant lying by liars and known liars who always lie. But the fools want to say pooh, pooh, and I remind people this is a Jew’s website, run by a Jew, and pushing a Jewwy purpose–to “normalize” these Jew monsters to be thought of as “like anyone else,” after all, “one can’t judge all Jews by just one or a few,” hoh o ho ho.

    So the pt. to all this foregoing recitation is INDUCTIVE EVIDENCE to effect manned moon-landing should be considered hoax till they prove it isn’t–which they can’t do, so naturally only thing left for Jews is to (attempt to) ridicule those who stick by the simple inductive logic to effect it’s surely just another hoax, like all the others by those lovely monsters, called Jews, leading Satanists who lead all the other Satanists.

    And now a HUGE disaster and train of disasters beckons, beginning in economics (at least for Jew S A as it gets ready for BIG failure) and extending then to warfare–warfare to distract fm the economics, but then soon enough war will become the primary topic of interest, the criminal economic masterminds having made their escape, having looted the economy and destroying the people–who were/are over-populated, to be sure, but who didn’t have to be so ruthlessly mass-murdered as seems to be inevitable.

  58. Anonymous [AKA "MichaelHorn"] says: • Website

    This will explain the truth about the so-called moon landing of Apollo 11:

    https://theyflyblog.com/2016/07/13/apollo-11-moon-landing-how-it-was-hoaxed/

    Ironclad examples of specific, prophetically accurate scientific information (especially about Mars):

    https://theyflyblog.com/2019/03/14/how-did-he-know-before-the-scientists-part-1/

    Conclusions of one of a number of independent experts:

    https://theyflyblog.com/2018/01/22/usaf-osi-investigator-concludes-billy-meier-ufo-case-real/

    The Billy Meier UFO contacts are singularly authentic, still ongoing (for over 77 years) and easily proved beyond a reasonable doubt…which means that the majority of online, armchair “experts” won’t be able to understand the evidence.

    While I will be glad to discuss – or debate – the Meier contacts with any scientist, most remain wedded to their narrow concerns, such as funding, tenure, “credibility”, ego, etc., and have neither the willingness, capacity nor competence to engage in a truly scientific examination of the evidence.

    There are exceptions:

    goo.gl/S6SVca

    goo.gl/FqMkwW

    goo.gl/tE27SE

    goo.gl/FquxMT

    https://theyflyblog.com/?p=3598

    Here’s a recent presentation:

    • Replies: @JRB
  59. Peredur says:
    @Peredur

    The words “In the quote for the current article, you” from my previous comment can be ignored. It looks like I started to write something and then started a new paragraph, forgetting about what I was about to write.

  60. Patricus says:
    @Dumbo

    It is possible to land on the moon, or on Mars, or to build a resort on the bottom of the Pacific. Why don’t we repeat or initiate these adventures? Maybe the tens and hundreds of billions expenditures aren’t justified once the first stunt occurs. The moon is uninhabitable for any extended time unless deep tunnels are created to protect people from solar radiation. Moon visitors would find themselves living in gloomy holes in the ground.

    Maybe future civilizations will dig holes to the center of the earth, or build cities that hover at 30,000 feet. Go Asia!

    When Europeans visited the American continents they found, at least, breathable air, fresh water and food.

    • Replies: @turtle
  61. Truth says:
    @Rabbitnexus

    I suspect the Van Allen Belt may be the thing not understood as well as Moon hoaxers assume. It is also not outside the realms of possibility that the pictures were faked for a reason other than poor quality. Another ‘rumour’ has it that they went there alright and what they found was so fundamentally paradigm changing that it could not be shown, namely ET bases and presence etc.

    So, you discount the possibility of your government lying to you, but champion the possibility of little green men on the moon?

  62. Anon[176] • Disclaimer says:

    Must have had an enormous amount of fuel in those rockets to fly 250,000+ miles, land, stay for three days in 200 degree temps, and then take off again, fly another 250,000+ miles back, and re-enter earth’s atmosphere and not burn up on the way down, passing that van allen belt a second time in a week, and landing in the ocean.

    All that helium 3, which could solve our energy needs, just sitting there in that lunar dust. Seems like we would be harvesting that by now.

    Since we dont seem capable of going anymore, it doesnt seem mean as much, like Potolomic-era Egyptians contemplating the Giza pyramids, 2000 years later without the ability to match them.

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  63. anon[331] • Disclaimer says:

    Since we dont seem capable of going anymore, it doesnt seem mean as much, like Potolomic-era Egyptians contemplating the Giza pyramids, 2000 years later without the ability to match them.

    when you go black….

  64. a German says:
    @Ron Unz

    Isn’t it better to be quiet if you now nothing about the theme you talking about?

    Over here in Germany the normal way of the – naturally clueless because of different profession – journalists was investigation. Was because today they do the same, writing for clickbait, not for content.

    Did you ever seen a photo made with a Hasselblad camera? The analog film processed in a professional photo lab? Can look fantastic.

    Afaik they holds 70mm film (twice the size of Kubrics films).

  65. a German says:
    @gepay

    I was surprised to learn that the Space station is in a low earth orbit. below the Van Allen belts. Nobody after has gone past the Van Allen belts – the hardest part for me to believe is that everything worked perfectly for the 6 missions .

    van Allen “belts” are of (electro)magnetic type. Can hold ionization but not radioactivity.
    Measurement differences between low earth orbit (LEO) and “outside the belts” is caused by the shielding of the earth (a giant nickel-iron ball more than 6000 km in diameter). You need twice the time to get the same dose in LEO. Russians stay there for years.

    This is just to write it down and move on. I am pretty sure everybody who “believes” in any the other direction will ignore it.

  66. A gender fluid American astronaut will place a laminated printout of his virtual spouse on the surface of the sun.

    You mean xziz, you monster.

    Also since the Latin nauta is masculine (and therefore hateful and rapist), saying “astronaut” is exactly the same thing as hating women and shouting Seig Heil while you rape them.

    Greek ἄστρον is neuter (despite ᾰ̓στήρ being hateful and masculine), so pairing it with a hateful Latin-sailor rape-ending is basically giving it back its schlong so it can rape all the other words.

    spouse is out: it indicates betrothal which is rapey violence and hateful slavery (and probably supports BDS and therefore gas chambers).

    A freely-identified stateless astroform (neuter + feminine) will dedicate a contemplative space to xziz virtual zxponxye.

    Someone will do something and nobody will dare question the decision.

    • LOL: Linh Dinh
  67. turtle says:
    @Patricus

    The moon is uninhabitable for any extended time unless deep tunnels are created to protect people from solar radiation. Moon visitors would find themselves living in … holes in the ground.

    That is one of the central premises of this famous SciFi novel:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress
    published in 1966, set in 2076.

    Other changes include unification of the entire North American continent under a successor government to the United States.
    It is suggested that the Western nations, including North America, have become corrupt and authoritarian, while holding on to the vestiges of the prewar democratic idealism in propaganda and popular culture.

    Sound familiar?

  68. @Ron Unz

    But I’d hardly take that as strong evidence that the Spanish Civil War never happened.

    Word for word quote (MEMRI-style): “…strong evidence that the Spanish Civil War never happened“.

  69. Since we’re back to the moon landings it seems everyone is repeating the same old arguments but there is one that has not been mentioned in even one of those 1,500 comments. That is the claim that thrust is impossible in the vacuum of space because there is nothing to “push” against. And since RU rates qualifications here is a presentation entitled “Scientist Shows Proof That Rockets Do Not Work In The Vacuum of Space” by an engineer with a M.Sc. who works in R&D:

    Have fun with it. At first I thought this guy chose a wrong calling in life and should have been a comedian instead but are NASA just comedians with more expensive and bigger toys? I had a good laugh, but seriously. This guy’s experiment involved propeller propulsion and not rocket propulsion.

    • Replies: @Alfa158
  70. WJ says:
    @Linh Dinh

    Seidel is a rawer, dirtier, darker extension of the Ashbery school of surrealist confessional poetry. It is a poetry that could only be written in America as its unstated assumption (of which Seidel is gloriously aware) is luxuriant self-degradation, in other words, the American Dream. Also check out Michael Robbins, Alien vs. Predator.

  71. Dumbo says:
    @Ron Unz

    Whether or not “we went to the Moon”, the whole Moon mission was clearly constructed as as spectacle for the masses, in the context of the Cold War. Many photographs were really “faked”, in the sense that they were admittedly made in a studio on Earth resembling the moon, BEFORE we actually went there, for media purposes. There was also animation effects for TV, a “fake” module, etc, anyway, a lot of it went into the media aspect of it, of course.

    Now, I’m not saying that it happened or didn’t happen, but if they could have faked it completely, at a fraction of the cost, and with the same desired results (publicity, “victory in the Space Race”), then why do the real thing, at all? Especially if you were not planning to go again for another 50 or 100 years.

  72. Willem says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    That is Pascal’s wager

    https://m.wikihow.com/Refute-Pascal%27s-Wager

    Just replace ‘God’ with ‘government’ and you have your answer.

    Of course Pascal’s wager only works as long as you believe in God (or government). Since all NASA scientists are government employees and therefore are heavily indoctrinated that Government=’Eternal Bliss’, Conspiracy theory=Bad, I guess you have your answer.

    And then there is also the Upton Sinclair quote (that you referred to in another comment) that it is difficult for man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it. With the government as God you can buy ‘eternal bliss’.

    And then there is also legacy. Do you want to be remembered as Rocket Scientist (eternal bliss) or as Conspiracy theorist (nutcase). All this applies to the reason why scientists do not speak out about the moon landing hoax and believe in government (=God=eternal bliss).

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  73. @Ron Unz

    Ron, mate, all you have to do to prove your theory is for your government to do it again.

    Bush unveils vision for moon and beyond

    From none other than CNN no less!

    “President Bush Wednesday unveiled an ambitious plan to return Americans to the moon by 2020…”

    Ambitious?

    How’s that “ambitious” Bush plan going? Last I checked it was almost mid 2019. You’ve got just over six months to start wrapping out your tin foil van allen belt radiation resistant interplanetary craft in puncture proof armour.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  74. Erebus says:

    Well, after reading most of the comments on the two moonie threads, my conclusion is that those Believers who aren’t simply 3 parts mad are sophists who’ve developed elaborate, self-referentially lambrynthian logics that they think somehow obviate the fact that the physical evidence that backs their belief amounts to the sqrt of fuck all.

    They also think the logical hairball they’ve created somehow makes insignificant the fact that while every relevant technology has advanced by leaps & bounds in the intervening 5 decades, some by orders-of-magnitude, the moon walking plans of the most advanced nations have gone round ‘n round the same problems without advancing a single step.

    How is it that those who would jam a camel through the eye of the needle created by the two above points are considered “orthodox”, while those who would say the camel don’t fit are considered “tendentious”.

    Somebody’s world is upside down.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @Arioch
  75. JRB says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    I just read the first link. I must say that this hypothesis that the first landing was faked, the rest wasn’t and that the alleged troubles of Apollo 13 were used to counterfeit the evidence of Apollo 11 a year later is an ingenious theory, that I have not come across before. The obvious weak point is why couldn’t they wait a few months more? Also another critical note : independent of what is said is true or not I don’t think it’s very ethical of Billy Meier and his alien pals first to abduct Ernst Stuhlinger to conduct an interview and second to out him in 2005, a few years before he died in 2008.

  76. @Willem

    Pascal’s wager would be more applicable to NASA (and of course the astronauts) if God could and would cut off your pension or make you have an “accident”. At that point who among us is not shouting from the rooftops–“I believe, I believe!”

    “Speaking truth to power” when it really matters is a Hollywood wet dream (Capricorn One). A whistle-blower with detailed proof on something of his consequence (the alleged greatest moment in the history of mankind) is extremely unlikely in one run of our Monte Carlo simulation.

  77. @Pat Hannagan

    Ron, mate, all you have to do to prove your theory is for your government to do it again.

    Not really. If they’ve faked it before they can fake it again. Then again, why haven’t they been faking it since the last time they faked it?

    • Agree: Kiel
    • LOL: Mike P
  78. Rurik says:
    @Erebus

    Somebody’s world is upside down.

    I occasionally have to take a hiatus from the Internet to conduct my affairs in real life, so I regretfully lose the cadence of these conversations, but I nevertheless wanted to at least thank those commenters for their thoughtful replies, including yours, Erebus, especially regarding the potential significance..

    with a single or composite photograph of (say) Tranquility Base of undeniable provenance that shows it as empty as it was 1B yrs ago. No complex technical arguments, or “aerospace experts” required. Such a photograph would be as effective with schoolchildren as it would be with their teachers or even, one hopes, with theoretical physicists cum bloggers.

    How many, I wonder.. of the ‘moon walk’ believers would be keen for such photographs (from several different angles, etc..) to be vetted and circulated and reproduced at will across the international scientific community spectrum?

    I know I for one, would like very much to see such photographs, regardless of what they showed. If they showed the cars and the rest of the debris, then awesome, I guess they actually did go. And if not, well then voila!

    And, since I’m posting here, and for what it’s worth.. I am not personally impressed by a lack of professionals (and perhaps especially ‘scientists’) by their collective behavior, or lack there of.

    Wasn’t it “all sixteen intelligence agencies” who assured us that Saddam had WMD?

    Wasn’t it “all sixteen intelligence agencies” who assured us all that Trump colluded with Russia to hack the election?

    Haven’t’ we all been barraged for the last decade or two that American white men driving pickup trucks, (especially those 4×4 ones, and especially if it’s in the South with a gun rack in the back window and a Confederate flag on the bumper!) ..are what’s causing the planet to burn to a crisp and will kill all life in 12 years flat?

    Wasn’t it 99.9999999999% of all ‘climate “scientists” who all claimed that “the science is settled”?

    And that it is American (and a few French men) whose use of fossil fuels was driving the planet to the brink?

    This I think, was when the ‘scientific community’ jumped the shark:

    https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/150302-syria-war-climate-change-drought/

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0962629816301822

    https://www.historicalclimatology.com/blog/is-climate-change-behind-the-syrian-civil-war

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-hastened-the-syrian-war/

    There are dozens of these articles, all lamenting how American men (by default) with their damnable pickup trucks and coal mines are causing little Syrian boys to wash up on beaches.

    The tragedy of the conflict notwithstanding, these ‘scientists’, are as principled and trustworthy as CNN anchors shouting “Russian collusion”! Or “Holocaust survivors’ who say it’s the truth even if they lied.

    We (the participants at Unz and beyond) all know how and why the Syrian civil war was perpetrated. And by whom. “Assad has to go”, was the mantra spewed by the murderous, treasonous scum perpetrating that war with their Syrian “rebels”, intended to fragment Syria at the seams so that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel could dismember her, (particularly the Golan, which was the prize all along. Duh).

    But from the length and breath of the “scientific community’, what we get is that it’s caused by American and French (they never mention China or anywhere else, who have a pass on carbon emissions), that are the selfish cause of all the earth’s myriad catastrophes. Including the Syrian war.

    Whoo boy.

    And it’s not just ‘scientists’ these days who’re as rotten and corrupt as it gets.

    It’s also obviously the media

    our governments

    and the professional classes almost across the entire spectrum.

    so I just don’t put too much stock in the fact that our gatekeepers to certain narratives are uniformly corrupt (and rotten to the core ; ).

    From the USS Liberty, to all the other false narratives and outright lies, (which unlike the moon walk, which was basically only for prestige), have been used as pretexts to murder, maim, torture, and displace millions, even as they’ve used these uniformly agreed upon lies to subvert our Constitution and eviscerate our civil rights.

    How many professionals and experts came out after the USS Liberty attack and declared for all the world to hear that it was obviously a deliberate act of war? Eh?

    On a slightly personal note, I know of a person who serves in a state government. This person is well aware of the treachery Israel has perpetrated upon Americans and others in their psychotic imperative for absolute domination in all things. And to that end, this person went along with a unanimous vote to protect Israel from BDS, by outlawing boycotts of Israel.

    The vote was unanimous, (at least in the GOP), and this from men and women who know all too well of their rank and indefensible treason, by voting ‘aye’ for such an abomination to freedom, truth, and simple human decency.

    Yet they all go along, because to do otherwise would not imperil them with jail or even a fine. But simply because by committing treason and betraying their constituents and fellow citizens, they’re that much more guaranteed to get re-elected and enjoy some perk$.

    So all of that just to punctuate the case that the collective silence of men with sinecures (slop flowing in the trough), will do anything to keep the $lop flowing. Especially if it only means by their (cowardly, sniveling, treasonous) silence.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  79. Alfa158 says:
    @gepay

    “worked perfectly for the 6 missions “. Ever heard of Apollo 13?

    “I think the photos are faked (none of the astronauts were even photo buffs as far as I have read)”
    Sure, the astronauts could obtain engineering degrees, be trained to fly jet fighters in their military careers and land on the pitching decks of aircraft carriers, operate space ships, perform docking rendezvous is orbit, and land on the lunar surface. However, learning how to operate a camera and take photos? Whoa! Clearly a task beyond their mental and physical limitations.

  80. Alfa158 says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Would you happen to know the company for which he works as an R&D engineer? I need to make sure that I don’t use anything they are making.

  81. Arioch says:
    @Erebus

    > the moon walking plans of the most advanced nations have gone round ‘n round the same problems without advancing a single step.

    For making a step someone should be making a step.
    Sure, they were not advanced. But… why should them?

    USSR/USA space race had two dimensions:

    1. Military: use space as hardly reachable and international (borderlines-agnostic) media for spy-sats, comm-sats, GPS-sats and potentially nuking and anti-missile sats. In the race where loosing could mean total and merciless destruction (ask Libya) no cost was too high.

    This, however, was achieved long ago. By both USA and USSR/RF.

    2. Show. Political prestige. Use byproducts (sic!) of military developments for relatively cheap (those were free byproducts mostly, R&D wise) to showcase how advanced are science and industries under blessing sun of one true ideology.

    Well, who today would be eager to show-case primacy of their ideology by flying to the Moon? North Korea? Brazil (do they have ideology?)? China (like they don’t have many enough other advancements)?

    And what are the states today, openly and successfully developing military technologies of the kind, that generates manned flight to the moon as a free byproduct???

    We had a joke about the famous cowboy, Uncatchable Joe. When a tourist got intrigued how came no one managed to catch him locals just asked why the F. anyone of them would need him?

    That is the Moon flight. That is STS Shuttle and Buran-Energiya.
    Their problems would not make a single advancement because no one have a tiniest desire to solve those problems. No any capable actor have a slightest need for those “glorious” goals today.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  82. I was going to leave this comment in the other thread, but Ron shut it down. No matter, this is one of LD’s best pieces yet.

    I don’t have enough specialized technical knowledge to say, with certainty, whether or not the moon landings were faked or not.

    I think my biggest problem is how do moon hoax believers explain the return of the camera from Surveyor 3 by the crew of Apollo 12? It’s front piece is pitted with micro meteorites and I’m sure the guys who built and designed what was doubtless one of the highlights of their lives know their work (unless they are in on it, too?) It’s on display in the Smithsonian.

    How could you replicate the micrometeorites scoring of the instrument?

    I don’t know, I have real problems with this bit.

    Bottom line, I think we went to the moon (though if I found out otherwise I would not be unduly shocked)…however, I do think we were very lucky that no one died in the process.

    • Replies: @Arioch
  83. Johann says:
    @brian boru

    Got to love Linh. He has the guts to tell the naked American Emperor that he has no clothes . Having reached my 75th year I have become deeply saddened to have realized the complete cess pool of lies and excrement that American culture represents. I look back on American politics and corporate institutions as the true manifestations of the anti Christ. It is very very sad to see the body bags of young American males being carried off the planes at Dover and being eulogized by the filth of the deep state and the cowardly generals who sent them to war. And that has been the history of the USA from the beginning. America delenda est.

    • Agree: apollonian
    • Replies: @apollonian
  84. @Commentator Mike

    Not really. If they’ve faked it before they can fake it again.

    Well, yeah, with the advances in computer graphics, it stands to reason that they could do a much better job of faking it now.

    Then again, why haven’t they been faking it since the last time they faked it?

    Well, I don’t know why, but there is such a thing as pushing one’s luck…

  85. Arioch says:
    @AintNoMouse

    > of the camera from Surveyor 3 by the crew of Apollo 12? It’s front piece is pitted with micro meteorites and I’m sure the guys who built and designed what was doubtless one of the highlights of their lives know their work (unless they are in on it, too?) It’s on display in the Smithsonian

    Let’s see if that is really hard 😀

    1. Some camera allegedly from Surv.3
    2. allegedly pitted by micrometeorites
    3. allegedly of a kind that only happen on Moon
    4. allegedly in quantities fitting the meteorites stream density in a given part of Moon

    Well, problem is that all 4 allegations are made by NASA – the only organization that allegedly has competence and factual data to make them.

    So it is kind of circular proof, basically anchored upon your trust to NASA, or lack of it.

    If you never ever seen ice and i come to us and say ice is green, it forms at temperatures starting with -20C, it is so hard it can cut glass and steel…

    You can either trust me or not.

    Then few years later i come with a piece of iron, carved with something, and claim “see! Those greenish pits! They could only be done by in-flying particles of this ice! And that proves i rescued this piece from the land of ice! Where i brought it 5 years ago! So this proves that i managed not only to throe it to the ice land once, but also to walk there on my two and bring the gadget back. And now i put it to the expo so all the people in our village could look from a far and appreciate how great our village is!”

    And how can you validate my claims? And why would you?

    Remember any classic detective, like by Agatha Christie.
    In the end protagonist sits and starts combining big puzzle.
    X said A. Y said B and C. Z said D and not B. Etc.
    Well, in the chapter about Surv.3 camera we do not seem to have X,Y and Z but only N speaking. Do we trust him?

    • Replies: @AintNoMouse
  86. apollonian says: • Website
    @Johann

    We’re In Satanic Phase Of Culture/History–Get A Clue

    Johann: perhaps thou are more right than thou realize. Note USA is now Jew S A, TOTALLY controlled by SATANISTS, SATANISM. What is “Satanism”?–it’s extreme subjectivism by which mind/consciousness is source of reality–IS reality. Thus the subject becomes God, the creator–Satanism by definition.

    Note this basic Satanism/subjectivism is SIMPLE philosophy–NOT “religious” or even mystic–but BECOMES elaborated then into “religion,” as in Zohar (“Cabala” )–see Talmudical.BlogSpot.com, RevisionistReview.BlogSpot.com, and Come-and-hear.com for best expo on Judaism.

    Jews DOMINATE because they practice a COLLECTIVISTIC subjectivism/Satanism, most effective “group-think,” Jews most motivated, dedicated, ORGANIZED, thus dominating the gentiles subjectivist/Satanists, even though out-numbered by gentiles.

    Note Christianity features worship of TRUTH (= Christ, Gosp. JOHN 14:6), above all, against Jew/satanic lies (JOHN 8:44). And TRUTH is only meaningful according to OBJECTIVE reality as necessary premise/criterion.

    And note history is CYCLIC according to Oswald Spengler, “Decline of the West,” by which a culture/empire begins in heroism and honesty of original founders, heeding the OBJECTIVE reality, like Romans and Americans, but inevitably becomes corrupted in HUBRIS and especially in moralism, PRETEXT for subjectivism–the obsession to pretend to perfectly “free” will and “virtue-signaling”–they LOVE to pretend they’re “good” (which “good” doesn’t and cannot exist within an objective and determined [strict cause-effect] reality) and “moral.”

    Eventually, Satanists and Jews totally RULE the culture (as we see presently) by means of CENTRAL-BANKING, a criminal enterprise featuring literally legalized counterfeiting and INFINITE fiat-currency, not real MONEY (commodity-based)–see Mises.org for expo; use their site search-engine for particular terms.

    So the course of central-banking is well-known in history–going back to John Law in France, early 18th cent.–the fraud must collapse, but just before final collapse the master-minds take us into war to distract the fools of an over-populated empire–which we see happening now in Syria, Ukraine, Korea, and Venezuela. People MUST get wise to save their lives and face-up to literal Satanist phase of hist. and culture now in effect.

  87. @Arioch

    As I say, I don’t have enough technical knowledge to know, one way or the other. I appreciate your thought process on this particular issue. It certainly could be as you say.

    There are no doubt some real issues with the official story. The interview by the astronauts where they exhibit such odd behavior for men who’ve just supposedly been to the moon seems particularly striking. Even if it turns out they did go, something is quite anomalous with their behavior.

    • Replies: @Arioch
  88. Arioch says:
    @AintNoMouse

    The problem here was famously outlined by Hitler (w.r.t. Jews/Marxists) and Goebbels (w.r.t. UK).

    Big Lie.

    As far as you admit you can not trust (just trust, immediately and kind of blindly) NASA in one thing, you have to admit you can no more “just trust” in other things. Then the ice behind your feet cracks and you fall into abyss. A huge part of what you believe you certainly and reliably know about world outside you is no more reliable and you fall. Into void. Into nothingness. With no more a thing to stick to. (except maybe a small quote from Talman 😀 )

    That is scary, verily.

    Even for me. Okey, thouse filthy capitalists, those imperialistic American scum – lied. Okay. I can live with that. I can enjoy it!

    But… Soviet Union supported that lie! It was the absolute requirement! Until “moon walk” USSR was undisputed leader in space exploration and USA was just me-too wannabe. One word from USSR would be enough to make this hoax – if it was hoax – to burst. But instead USSR surrenders this undisputed leadership and authority position instead of “protecting the truth” ???????

    So, if i get nerve to distrust NASA official records i then necessarily have to distrust Soviet official records too! And the ice cracks….

    • Replies: @Olivier1973
  89. Olivier1973 says: • Website

    Ron Unz wrote this comment about the moon lies: “Now after reading this lengthy exposition of the material, my current view is that…they still seem just as totally ridiculous.”

    So Run Onz is behaving like a believer, discarding the scientific facts. Please watch the documentary of Massimo Mazzucco, a 3h30 video, which proves behond any doubt that the moon landings never happened. Back in 1969 technology just did not exist to do such a journey, and currently it still does not exist. Two problems which should have been solved at that time are currently investigated to see how to deal with them:
    1) Van Allen belts;
    2) reentry from deep space.
    So why to investigate now something which was solved if the journeys were real?

    If you want answers to almost all questions, look for answers here:

    http://www.aulis.com

    Even Von Braun said that it was not possible to go to the moon with the rockets in use at the time.

  90. Olivier1973 says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    But I’d hardly take that as strong evidence that the Spanish Civil War never happened.

    Comparing apples and oranges, this does not make an argument. Do you know that mass graves are dug and that some people are trying to identify the corpses? Is that enough evidence for you that the Spanish Civil War happened?

    Get the Documentary American Moon by Massimo Mazzucco. After you will be able to understand that everything was faked.

    You will learn how some photographs were faked, and it had nothing to do with “touching them up”.

    Until then you are only believing what you believe with nothing else than saying: All is faked, but they went nevertheless. Same as there is no evidence that gods exist, but still some people believe they exist.

  91. If Ron Unz were to ask ten space scientist if the moon landing actually occurred, he’ll get the same YES answer he’ll get if he ask ten Christian theologians if Jesus walked on water.

    What it all boils down to, is when it comes to walking on water and making multiple moon landing with nary a hitch, is whether or not a person believes in miracles, or is able and willing to employ a measure of common to figure things out for themselves.

  92. @Jonathan Revusky

    Well, the really core problem in all this, Ron, is that, in this whole matter, you’re engaging in backward reasoning. You’re deciding what you want to believe and then reasoning backwards to support that belief. You’re not engaging in the facts and reasoning forward to arrive at a conclusion. You’re starting with the conclusion and reasoning backwards.

    Well said.
    Another way to say it: cognitive dissonance.

    Always remember that quote by Mark Twain:
    “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

  93. @Jonathan Revusky

    Yeah, and he might be rewarded with 72 virgins as well….

    The problem is that some really said so (nobody went – hence the current research), but apparently no believer is listening.

  94. Olivier1973 says: • Website
    @Arioch

    Soviet Union supported that lie!

    Of course! Because they knew that even their own well in advance technology was unable to bring them there. And a deal was concluded.

    Look somewhere here for the detailled answer:

    https://aulis.com/

    And repeat after me: as everybody knows, NASA is never lying:

    • Replies: @Arioch
  95. @Commentator Mike

    Not really. If they’ve faked it before they can fake it again. Then again, why haven’t they been faking it since the last time they faked it?

    Obvious. Because they are not even able to build a rocket to go to LEO and they have to buy them from the Russians. And to make a rocket hologram is not so easy.

  96. @ Linh Dinh

    no crater on the lunar surface from the landing engine; no noise from the blasting rocket as Buzz Aldrin, seated just 16 inches away, communicated with Houston; no required minimal gaps of 2.6 seconds on several radio exchanges;

    I suspect you watched the American Moon documentary by M. Mazzucco (by the way also author of the New Pearl Harbour).

    • Replies: @Linh Dinh
  97. Arioch says:
    @Olivier1973

    > Because they knew that even their own well in advance technology was unable to bring them there

    So what?

    Let’s assume it was so and Moon was not reachable for USSR in that decade, or even never.

    Why then give USA their moment of glory?
    Why not keep intrigue and enjoy Soviet primacy in space race?

    If USSR helped USA to get away with SUCH a hoax – there has to be HUGE price to be pai for this. But i can not see it

  98. @Arioch

    This lengthy article explains why the USSR helped the USA with the hoax–they did so because it was in their interest–Nixon cut a deal they liked:

    https://aulis.com/illusion.htm

    • Replies: @Arioch
    , @Arioch
  99. Linh Dinh says:
    @Olivier1973

    Hi Olivier1973,

    I became familiar with these issues several years ago. The moon hoax article on Unz, and the mostly negative comments against it, prompted me to revisit the issue, so I bought the Wisnewski and read it. I have not seen the Mazzucco film.

    Linh

    • Replies: @Olivier1973
  100. @Charles

    Where would you find that intelligent person?

  101. durd says:
    @Charles

    Phil Plait:

    Bad:” In the pictures taken of the lunar lander by the astronauts, the TV show continues, there is no blast crater. A rocket capable of landing on the Moon should have burned out a huge crater on the surface, yet there is nothing there.”

    Good: “When someone driving a car pulls into a parking spot, do they do it at 100 kilometers per hour? Of course not. They slow down first, easing off the accelerator. The astronauts did the same thing. Sure, the rocket on the lander was capable of 10,000 pounds of thrust, but they had a throttle. They fired the rocket hard to deorbit and slow enough to land on the Moon, but they didn’t need to thrust that hard as they approached the lunar surface; they throttled down to about 3000 pounds of thrust.”

    Really? This is a good analogy? It takes more power to slow down a lunar lander not less power. Less power would speed up it’s descent and create a crash landing. More power would create a dust storm. Therefor a blast crater would be present if the landing was on moon sediments and the lunar lander would be covered in dust due to gravity.

    Phil is being a con here and I imagine elsewhere on his blog. Why be a con if they truly landed?

    • Replies: @Amon
  102. apollonian says: • Website
    @Charles

    There’s NO PROOF For Any Manned Moon-Landing, Suckers–So Why Should Anyone Beeeeleeeeeeeeev?

    Charles: So thy conclusion is that since, as thou put it, “[m]ost any question . . . is answered,” this then constitutes “proof” the pretended manned moon-landing took place?–because, gee whiz, it COULD have taken place like we said. And since “any question is answered”–then that’s what actually happened?–but how do thou KNOW? Don’t thou realize all thou does is TAKE SOMEONE’S WORD?–because gee whiz, it really MIGHT have been that way.

    Only ONE thing could constitute PROOF–and that’s sense-perception of the event. Otherwise an INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT needs be persuasive, but so far there hasn’t been such inductive argument–except to say it COULD have been this (or some other) way that the manned moon-landing actually took place. We would now need archaeologic -type evidence for previous human presence, but problem there would be trusting the “archaeologists.”

    So all Unz and others do is to say WE SHOULD TAKE ZOG’S WORD–which we clearly shouldn’t given their consistent record of LIES LIES LIES LIES and LYING LYING LYING. Citizens HATE ZOG for excellent reason. Does anyone beeeeeleeeeeeeeeeeeeev in present US Gov.’s economic data?–that un-employment is low, that inflation is low?–they lie and fudge and slant the info to serve their interests–ALWAYS–such is nature of gov. and human nature.

    So Unz and the others say we should “beeeeeleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeev,” no less than the “Judeo-Christians” who say Christ was Jew, etc.–Unz and these others just won’t admit they advocate such absurdity.

  103. Glad I helped inspire this magnificent article! Listen to us discuss this stuff:

    https://www.patreon.com/posts/linh-dinh-on-as-26023777

    Re: “Yes, it is very human to dream of flying ever higher, but to wish to live on a distant, inhospitable planet where nothing is meant for your kind betrays not hope, but a profound despair and a near total lack of imagination.” Great line! It reminds me of John Lennon’s favorite book, The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch by Philip K. Dick, published in 1964, which predicted global warming and Elon Musk style Mars colonization, but was really a sci-fi satire on the same barren vacuity of American culture that Linh lacerates here.

  104. Erebus says:
    @Arioch

    Well, who today would be eager to show-case primacy of their ideology by flying to the Moon?

    Geo-politically, the situation is analogous to the ’60s, with two fundamentally different views of the world order competing for primacy. Or, more accurately, the incumbent world view is being challenged by a radically different alternative.

    Perhaps unsurprisingly, we’ve seen all of the primary protagonists in this new ideological battle announce intentions to go to the moon. I don’t think that one would be wildly off the mark in saying that at least some of the motivation behind these announcements (and the real science/engineering that’s going on behind that) comes from “showcasing”.

    No any capable actor have a slightest need for those “glorious” goals today.

    I’d say the opposite. The “need” is at least as great as the ’60s. In any case, citing “need” is completely irrelevant, and a disingenuous attempt to misdirect away from the point.

    Said point is that the Apollo-gists’ claim that those problems were solved 50 yrs ago. Within living memory. Ergo, there should be no need to solve them again.

    As all 3 protagonists state that a need to (re)solve them remains, Apollo-gists need to come up with Either a reasonable/plausible explication of how all that knowledge came to be lost, Or they have to convincingly show how one can can go to the moon without solving those problems.
    They have done neither.

    If, in fact the problems are real and can’t easily be solved with today’s vastly greater technology and understanding of space, then Apollo-gists have their work cut out for them explicating how their Leap of Faith differs from Kierkegaard’s.

    Everything I’ve read from them says it doesn’t. It’s religion all the way down after that.

    • Replies: @Arioch
  105. But what about the non-photographic physical evidence like the USA Surveyor 3 camera and soil scoop that was returned on the Apollo 12 mission? Two pieces of unique American equipment back on US soil. No photo analysis necessary; the camera is on public display. How come we don’t hear of elaborate theories of how it got back from the lunar surface? Is that too much to ask?

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

    Or, the reception of Apollo 16 lunar video transmissions straight from the lunar surface by Germans using a 20-meter parabolic dish. A picture from the transmission was published, along with the technical means this was accomplished in a Rohde & Schwarz publication.

    http://www.classicbroadcast.de/stories/stories_sternwarte_bochum.pdf

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  106. Erebus says:
    @Rurik

    I know I for one, would like very much to see such photographs, regardless of what they showed. If they showed the cars and the rest of the debris, then awesome, I guess they actually did go. And if not, well then voila!

    You bet. If the site photos show tell tale signs of moonwalks, I’ll be first to genuflect before the giants that walked the earth in those days.

    However, if it comes back empty, the US will take a terrible blow to what’s left of its prestige both internationally and domestically – a cathartic blow that would probably see most of the big myths and hoaxes collapse with unpredictable results.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  107. @Arioch

    Some would say they are joined at the 33rd level. So a bunch of Vietnamese and some Americans died. And some people got worked up about it. Some rivalry. But all I can do is doubt. Even that.

  108. @Jonathan Revusky

    Revusky nails it! The Unz Review is the poorer for the lack of JR’s recent articles and more regular commentary so I for one would like the reinstatement of his former publishing privileges to be considered Mr Unz. Cheers

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Jonathan Revusky
  109. Arioch says:
    @Erebus

    > two fundamentally different views of the world order competing for primacy.

    Keynesian state-ruled capitalism vs ultra-liberal capitalism ruling states.
    I doubt difference is so fundamental like it was.

    > all of the primary protagonists in this new ideological battle announce intentions to go to the moon

    Words, words, words (c)

    > at least some of the motivation behind these announcements (…) comes from “showcasing”.

    In this time if one wants to impress masses he has to showcase some real stuff instead of tin cans on flying rock. Something like Paris Hilton pants colour, or Lady Gaga’s nipple. That is where showcasing battle of nations goes today.

    Plus, the main driver was arms race anyway, and today it mover elsewhere. No free byproducts, which civic space flights used to be.

    > and the real science/engineering that’s going on behind that

    It is not. Not in any statistically noticeable quantities.

    > citing “need” is completely irrelevant, and a disingenuous attempt to misdirect away from the point

    Funny. Debunking one of hoaxers argument is “completely irrelevant” ? Turns out it is you who try to misdirect….

    > Apollo-gists need to come up with Either a reasonable/plausible explication of how all that knowledge came to be lost

    Knowledge is so vague the word…
    Knowledge to produce Abrams tanks (engines) and STS Shuttle is lost. When it was that last Abrams or Shuttle were produced (not assembled by cannibalized parts, but really produced)?

    Or, rather, why have i to charge my smartphone every night? Allegedly knowledge of sustained supplying power to computers was gained when ENIAC (or rather the first computer before it) went live. But my phone and its constant need to be charged prove it was hoax. Knowledge of continuously powering computers is obviously lost, probably never existed.

    At the same time, hoaxers “need to come up with Either a reasonable/plausible explication of how all” world nations decided and succeeded to take part in the hoax.

    And why they fail to do it again. Was knowledge of making hoaxes lost?

    Sure, leap of faith. But that is not one party that needs it. Both flighters and hoaxers need that great leap, just into opposite directions.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  110. @Joe Stalin

    As one of the Russian commentators wryly noted–we are engaged in an endless game of tennis here. That is why the previous thread is so long. This site is to be commended for allowing an open discussion (with only occasional name-calling)–so rare and refreshing these days.

    As to the surveyor pictures, fake because:

    https://www.aulis.com/mooncolour2.htm

    What is interesting about this issue is that the recent Chinese landing gave us new data demonstrating the flaws with the Apollo “data”–I expect to see more of that in future years. The illusion of the emperor’s clothes will dissipate one small layer at a time–think of it as “strip poker” on the moon. 😉

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    , @onebornfree
  111. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    This apropos quote from today’s Unz review featured article:

    “Research has shown that human beings are highly resistant to facts that challenge their core convictions. They will seize on any information that confirms their preexisting beliefs and if their beliefs are challenged, they will simply ignore or disbelieve the source. Stronger challenges to core beliefs can even backfire, causing people to double down on their original position.

    Troy Campbell, a researcher on the topic, explained it this way: “As causes become our identity, we don’t just believe we are right anymore; we need to believe we are right to maintain self-worth.”…”

    ” How White Liberals Will Wake Up”: http://www.unz.com/article/how-white-liberals-will-wake-up/

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @Olivier1973
  112. @Linh Dinh

    Hello Linh,

    Thanks a lot for your comment and for the lead to Wisnewski. It is quite probable then that Mazzucco put into images the content of Wisnewski’s book. For instance there are a couple of voice records allegedly from the moon to Houston and it is shown that the elapsed time make it impossible for the astronauts to be at such distance. Nobody can beat the laws of physic, not even NASA. And because they couldn’t they did not send anyone on the moon, and even no one beyond LEO.

  113. @onebornfree

    Spot on!

    It is called cognitive dissonance.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  114. @Anon

    To those who believe in miracles, nothing’s impossible.

  115. utu says:
    @NoseytheDuke

    “reinstatement of his former publishing privileges’ only if his commenting privileges are revoked.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  116. @Peredur

    OK, Let me clarify: Ron has called my statement “generous”. Perhaps it was too generous, and perhaps he tried to get too much out of it. By that “statement” (just a comment, really), I was trying to empathically understand his position, recognize his right to it, and also see its value. I call it a “position” rather than a “belief”, because I truly don’t know what Ron really believes. But as a position, it has its legitimacy. Its value has already been demonstrated by the stimulation that it has provided, but I also wanted to see it as a positive challenge to scientists and engineers. (I guess I’m trying to think dialectically.) I didn’t mean specially scientists and engineers who worked on the NASA project: I think NASA people are the least likely to speak, even if retired, if they have any family at all. Rather, I am thinking of scientists and engineers outside of NASA or the military-industrial complex. To dispell any doubt, I emphatically reaffirm that I think “common sense” of a reasonable IQ type, and a bit of culture in American history of lies, is enough to conclude that the evidence provided by NASA of the moon landings is fake.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Peredur
  117. Rurik says:
    @Erebus

    if it comes back empty, the US will take a terrible blow to what’s left of its prestige both internationally and domestically – a cathartic blow that would probably see most of the big myths and hoaxes collapse with unpredictable results.

    I can’t think of even one negative consequence of such a blow.

    Even the butt-hurt feelings of Americans ‘exceptionalism’ being blown to smithereens would be a welcome sea change in the way Americans see themselves.

    That, and an opportunity for Americans to do some much-needed reflection on many of their cherished existential conceits.

    And I say that distinctly as an American.

    We Americans did not fight the ‘good fight’ during the world wars. Just the opposite- (securing commie slavery and genocide over half the European continent while incinerating untold millions of innocent civilians).

    That epiphany, in and of itself, would be perhaps the most positive revelation that Americans could grapple with, even more so than our dubious ‘moon walk’ accomplishments.

    So it is with the aspiration that Americans might somehow extrapolate from our storied lies and false narratives- to then look at and reflect at how America is behaving on the world’s stage today, would be my hope.

    I was a kid in the sixties. I remember the rancor over the Vietnam war and the so-called civil rights movement, hippies, ‘devil’s music’, long hair and the cultural upheavals. But with all of that, the idea of America operating a torture camp, was utterly incomprehensible. Like a return to the dark ages. It would simply have been inconceivable in the America of the sixties.

    Now today, that’s the America I live in. The America of “it’s worth it”. “It’s very good”. And Forever Wars, drones assassinations and total surveillance.

    Anything that could be done to shock the American people out of their murderous bovine stupor, and force them to do some much-needed self-reflection, could only be a positive thing, since it’s hard to even contemplate how America could be much worse than it already is.

    But then, I guess I wasn’t around for the Holodomor, so I haven’t even begun to appreciate what they’re capable of.

    Anyways .. here’s to hoping the whole rotten canard all comes crashing down upon their/our heads, in the desperate hope that perhaps something, ANYTHING, can jostle them out of their cognitive sleep-walk though life.

    (but I’m not holding my breath ; )

  118. Ron Unz says:
    @Moon landing skeptic

    OK, Let me clarify: Ron has called my statement “generous”. Perhaps it was too generous, and perhaps he tried to get too much out of it.

    Yes, as I suggested, stating that “hundreds of thousands” of scientists and engineers are currently aware of the Moon Hoax but keep silent seemed an overly generous concession to me. But I do think a figure of many, many thousands or even tens of thousands is quite reasonable.

    After all, if supposedly even a layman using “common sense” can easily see that the Moon Landings were “scientifically impossible” for so many different and obvious reasons then surely a vast number of specially-trained scientists and engineers must be aware of those same facts. Indeed, I’d imagine nearly every technically-skilled NASA employee of that period must have known. So why have they all kept silent? Have they spent fifty years terrified of being killed by NASA assassins?

    To my mind, the final nail in the coffin was my discovery mentioned upthread that the whole Moon Hoax conspiracy movement was apparently launched by a TV arguing that case which was broadcast by Rupert Murdoch’s Fox TV network in 2001. If the story were true and promoted on a national TV network, why didn’t any of the former NASA employees come forward to express their agreement and immediately become rich and famous as a result?

  119. Peredur says:
    @Moon landing skeptic

    Thanks. The scientists and engineers I know personally do not talk about Apollo, for the most part. To the extent that they do, it is with belief and admiration. My perspective is that there is no reason for it to be obvious to most scientists and engineers that the “manned Moon landings” are fake. I see little connection between ongoing space-related research and the Apollo missions. One might think that lunar scientists/geologists would be able to tell that there was something wrong with the Moon rocks and the scenes around the landers. This is puzzling to me, but part of the picture is that lunar science is closely controlled by NASA. It can fund whom it wants, in the US at least. I think there is collusion between space agencies of different countries, moreover. The deep state could eliminate inconvenient insiders, as well. Geologists like to get out in the field, which provides opportunities for elimination.

    • Replies: @Arioch
  120. Peredur says:
    @Ron Unz

    Indeed, I’d imagine nearly every technically-skilled NASA employee of that period must have known. So why have they all kept silent?

    I and others have already responded to this point many times over. See my most recent response to Moon Landing Skeptic, for instance. I see little point in repeating what I have already written, but it is at least worth letting other readers know that this point you keep making has not gone unanswered.

    To my mind, the final nail in the coffin was my discovery mentioned upthread that the whole Moon Hoax conspiracy movement was apparently launched by a TV arguing that case which was broadcast by Rupert Murdoch’s Fox TV network in 2001.

    This seems overly simplistic to me. The main reason for increasing belief in conspiracy “theories” is the arrival of the widely-accessible Internet. It is true that the Bart Sibrel documentary (to which I think you are referring) is important. I often mention it when bringing up the Moon hoax in comment threads, since it is an excellent introduction to the subject. Personally, however, it was not that documentary that made me aware of the likelihood that the manned Moon landings were a hoax but rather the book “And I suppose we didn’t go to the Moon either” by Jim Fetzer et al.

    It seems like a common tactic for people who want to dismiss a certain view to try to reduce it to one person, or something akin to that. People trying to debunk claims about aspects of the official Holocaust narrative being false try to reduce it to one person, like Faurrison. People opposed to immigration restrictionism try to reduce it to John Tanton.

    If the story were true and promoted on a national TV network, why didn’t any of the former NASA employees come forward to express their agreement and immediately become rich and famous as a result?

    For the same reason they didn’t come forward before the show was aired. There must be very few who knew/know for a fact that the manned landings were fake.

    This does relate to a more interesting question, however, which is why Fox decided to air a documentary like this. I think Bart Sibrel says (e.g., in videos) that the documentary he made (which I think was aired on Fox) was funded by an insider. Also, he was provided “never-before-seen” (in Mr. Sibrel’s words) footage of Apollo 11 astronauts faking a scene from low-earth-orbit. This again suggests an insider. Was this a genuinely hostile (to the deep state) insider, or was it the deep state engaging in the deliberate gradual release of information? There is the concept of “revelation of the method” discussed by Michael A. Hoffman. Sometimes the deep state deliberately releases secrets to make it easier to say that something is “old news” later, in order to prevent a greater controversy later.

  121. Rurik says:

    why didn’t any of the former NASA employees come forward to express their agreement and immediately become rich and famous as a result?


    US Attorney General Eric Holder wrote: “Mr Snowden has filed papers seeking temporary asylum in Russia on the grounds that if he were returned to the United States, he would be tortured and would face the death penalty. These claims are entirely without merit.”

    He added: “Torture is unlawful in the United States.

    [my emphasis]

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-tells-russia-we-wont-torture-edward-snowden-if-he-is-extradited-home-8734490.html

    Edward Snowden on Gina Haspel: ‘You Can Literally Torture People And You Will Be Promoted’

    What did Mr. Snowden do that so many are clamoring for his head on a pike?

    Did he jeopardize American national security?

    Or, did he simply point out US government treason, treachery, lies and endemic criminality?

    On behalf of the freedom and well-being of the American people, and on behalf of the truth.

    And for that, what might the ‘authorities’ be inclined to do with Mr. Snowden?

    • Agree: Republic
    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @utu
    , @James Forrestal
  122. durd says:

    How to land a space craft on the moon:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=174&v=VYd5vRjsfQE

    The above video says the lander will free fall from 5 meters. I imagine this is to not destroy the landing site or raise unnecessary dust. Although, dropping 180 kilos from 5 meters would take serious shock absorbers in my opinion. Perhaps some answers to the Apollo landings can be found here if this is real.

  123. Rurik says:
    @Rurik

    this just on Drudge at the moment

    MADRID (Reuters) – Wikileaks founder Julian Assange may risk torture if he is extradited to the United States, one of his lawyers said in Madrid on Thursday, following Assange’s arrest in London.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-assange-lawyer-spain/assange-may-risk-torture-in-united-states-his-lawyer-says-idUSKCN1RN2CJ

    Didn’t our ‘almost’ president Hillary cackle with giddiness over the sodomy/torture death of a head of state that she was elated about her personal responsibility for?

    Doesn’t president Trump just adore The Ministry of Love – Gitmo?

    https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/31/582033937/trump-signs-order-to-keep-prison-at-guantanamo-bay-open

    didn’t he exalt a known practitioner of torture, known as the “Godmother of Torture” to head up the CIA?

    If someone dropped some evidence for who exactly was responsible for 9/11 into my lap, and I had the opportunity to expose the bastards for that enormity, and become personally ‘rich and famous’ as a result, would it be prudent of me to do so?

    Or, would it be better to check with Putin about a possible asylum claim, beforehand?

    For what it’s worth, I really don’t know if ‘we’ went to the moon or not, but as far as professionals and even technicians and such, being willing to keep silent over their knowledge of government treasons, (most notoriously 9/11), I have absolutely no doubt.

    Michael Hastings and Seth Rich and Udo Ulfkotte (like Gary Webb and so many others) were done in a way to send a message.

    They didn’t even bother to take Seth Rich’s watch or wallet during the officially designated ‘robbery’ for which he was assassinated.

    WikiLeaks is(was?) offering a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in Rich’s murder. (bringing us back in a circle to Jullian Assange).

    Even Donna Brazile claimed to be in genuine fear for her life.

    How much less so would some obscure scientist claiming to have proof we never went to the moon?

  124. Mulegino1 says:

    The manned moon landing controversy cannot be resolved by appeals to authority, outlandish claims of American exceptionalism or the alleged existence of a “secret space program.”

    Simply put, the official US government and its intelligence/media branch has a record for monumental mendacity heretofore unequaled by the vast majority of regimes. The big lie did not all of a sudden spring to life in September of 2001, or with the Kuwaiti incubator babies, the Gulf of Tonkin non-event, or the fact that FDR lied the American people into war by laying the groundwork for the attack on Pearl Harbor. Mendacity has been the official policy ever since, “Remember the Maine. To hell with Spain!” and most likely well before that.

    Why would the American government and its unofficial CIA controlled media branch not lie about something so grandiose as “putting a man on the moon”, especially on the first attempt? Who among the American public but an infinitesimal minority, had the relevant technical or scientific information or the temerity to doubt, much less openly question, the official narrative back in 1969? At that time, the overwhelming majority of the American public was still stuck in the Cold War paradigm, and the idea that the US was the leader of the “Free World.” And after all, Walter Cronkite was considered the most trusted man in America.

    As the late William Casey, Reagan’s CIA director, remarked: “We will know we have succeeded when everything the American public believes is false.”

  125. durd says:

    Israel’s Beresheet crash landed! No real video! I960’s tech rules!

    • LOL: Rurik
    • Replies: @TT
  126. @Ron Unz

    Yes, as I suggested, stating that “hundreds of thousands” of scientists and engineers are currently aware of the Moon Hoax but keep silent seemed an overly generous concession to me. But I do think a figure of many, many thousands or even tens of thousands is quite reasonable.
    After all, if supposedly even a layman using “common sense” can easily see that the Moon Landings were “scientifically impossible” for so many different and obvious reasons then surely a vast number of specially-trained scientists and engineers must be aware of those same facts.

    You are right: I shouldn’t have said “hundreds of thousands”. Let’s settle for “a vast number”.

    Indeed, I’d imagine nearly every technically-skilled NASA employee of that period must have known. So why have they all kept silent? Have they spent fifty years terrified of being killed by NASA assassins?

    As I said before, by this “vast number”, I do not mean people who were involved in the NASA project. In fact, if Apollo was little more than a studio production, then very few people were involved. Most NASA people were working on totally different things—whether or not they believed their work to be connected to Apollo. They had no special inside knowledge that would make it easier for them to see the hoax. How many people, by the way, are really working for NASA? How do we know if the official number (if there is such a thing) is true? How do we know if the NASA budget is not *funneled somewhere else? If we are now talking of the people who took the photos and the films, who definitely know, then it is not difficult to understand why none has talked. Most of them are nobodies, easily dispensable. If one of them came out saying: “I shot that photo in a studio”, who would believe him? Would he have a chance to make a public statement before being disappeared? Now, some of the people involved were more than just photographs and technicians, and that is where the case of Kubrick is interesting (though I insisted that it can in no way be used as an argument, since we have no confession of Kubrick, just the theory of a cryptic confession).

    the whole Moon Hoax conspiracy movement was apparently launched by a TV arguing that case which was broadcast by Rupert Murdoch’s Fox TV network in 2001

    That is an exagerration. As I wrote in my article, this Fox film Did we land on the moon ? came after a few influencial films from 1999 (40th anniversary). And some commenters have corrected my assumption that, before 1999, the moon hoax theory was confidential, by point out, for exemple, that according to a poll made by Knight Newspapers one year after the first moon landing, more than 30 percent of respondents were suspicious of NASA’s trips to the moon.

    If the story were true and promoted on a national TV network, why didn’t any of the former NASA employees come forward to express their agreement and immediately become rich and famous as a result?

    This is perhaps a good excuse for not looking into the issue (under the assumption that, if Fox TV broadcast it, then it must be a lie), but once you have looked seriously into the issue and become convinced that Apollo was a hoax, then it is just something that needs to be explained. So here is a possible explanation. We are dealing here with a media war, in which every piece of information, whether true or fake, is like a card in a poker game. Sometimes some people in charge want to attract public attention on some news (whether true or false), at some specific time, for example to distract attention from another news (whether true or false) that others (e.g. another country) want to promote, or to apply some pressure on some other interest group or country, as a kind of blackmail. For example, Israel might want to use Fox TV to pressure the US Intelligence community into covering Israel’s involvement in 9/11. If you know one a dark secret of a country, that is very helpful to prevent it from telling the dark secret they know about your country.
    In any case, the argument you are making cannot be used both ways: if nobody speaks publicly about the moon hoax, then it cannot be serious, and if the TV talks about it, then it must be false. No definite conclusion can be drawn from the fact that Fox TV produced the documentary Did We Land on the Moon? Consider for example that, on November 13, 2010, Fox News aired a program (Geraldo at Large), on 9/11, with a focus on WTC7 (enter “Geraldo Rivera on WTC7” on Youtube). His guests were the father of a victim of 9/11, and a member of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, who dispute the official version. Rivera appeared supportive of their view. What was the purpose of this? There are several possible answers, one of which could be, again, to pressure the US State apparatus not to mention Israel in the 9/11 debate (“mention Saudi Arabia instead”): WTC7 is really the aspect of 9/11 with the least direct connection to Israel, and the most connection to the CIA, Gulliani, etc.
    To finish, I think we definitely needs to do some research to see if, really, there is no debate on the moon hoax in the scientific community. I suspect there is, but, being a State security matter, it remains within closed doors. Perhaps it is more open in countries outside US control. In my article, I mentioned the news that Russian officials are calling for a new investigation on the moon landings. If true (that would need checking, but if not true, why would US newspaper report it?), then this is a strong argument against your view that the whole thing is ridiculous: Russian administrative bodies would not raise such questions if it could make them look ridiculous. Is there a body of Russian scientists behind this move? I hope we’ll know pretty soon.

  127. Arioch says:
    @Peredur

    > One might think that lunar scientists/geologists would be able to tell that there was something wrong with the Moon rocks and the scenes around the landers.

    They can not because they were taught to be “lunar geologists” – by *those very* rocks.

    Now, assuming the hoax was and American moon rockls are fake, and imagine now China brings some genuine Moon rocks then what would those geologists say? They would compare Chinese rocks with Americans, see they do not match and declare Chinese ones fake – because mismatching with etalon rocks they were learning of in their youth.

    See, science is about comparing things.
    If you have two rocks – you can compare them and see if they match or not.
    If you have one rock, and a textbook describing some other rock, you can somewhat compare that real rock with an imaginary rock you recreate from book pages.
    But if you have one rock and a textbook describing that very rock – they would ALWAYS match.

    • Replies: @Peredur
  128. Peredur says:
    @Arioch

    I have said I think that collusion between space agencies is involved in maintaining the deception. This includes the Chinese space agency. I don’t know exactly how NASA gets away with claiming that it brought 800 lbs of rocks back from the Moon, but it has to do with controlling who gets to examine the rocks. I think the original Unz Review article mentioned how there was an expedition to Antarctica to obtain rocks inferred to be from the Moon. This raises the question of how the scientists who examined the rocks would not have seen indications that the rocks had been in Earth environment, as opposed to the surface of the Moon, for a while. I don’t know. It might be possible to process rocks in such a way as to remove certain evidence and add false evidence (as far as what sort of environment the rock was in).

    The bottom line is that I don’t know how this part of the hoax was and still is pulled off, but it is still plausible that it could have been pulled off. Similarly, 9/11 truthers don’t know exactly how that was carried out and covered up, but that does not mean that they have to accept the official story.

    See, science is about comparing things.

    That is part of what science is about, but that does not mean that NASA or any other space agency would fund research by an outsider who wanted to do a comparison that would potentially show that the 800 lbs of rocks were not brought from the Moon by Apollo astronauts.

    “Comparing a rock with a picture in a textbook.” Gee, you sound very knowledgeable.

    • Replies: @Olivier1973
    , @Arioch
  129. Arioch says:
    @Justvisiting

    This lengthy article explains why the USSR helped the USA with the hoax–they did so because it was in their interest–Nixon cut a deal they liked:

    https://aulis.com/illusion.htm

    What a nice article, like a well-made tale, smooth and thrilling.
    But….

    In May 26, 1972 despite the clash in Vietnam, US President Richard Nixon visited Moscow. It was an extraordinary event, as, it was the first visit of an American President to the Soviet Union since the end of the Second World War. Prior to that, only once in June, 1961 was there a short working meeting of the Soviet and American leaders ( Khrushchev and Kennedy ) at a neutral venue in Vienna.

    WUT ??????????

    That is as stupid as claiming that… dunno… like claiming that in 1972 Olympic games for the first time were hosted by Germany.
    It is a clumsy attempt at ignoring the event not merely well-known, but FAMOUS.

    Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev caps his trip to the United States with two days of meetings with President Dwight D. Eisenhower. The two men came to general agreement on a number of issues

    For nearly two weeks, his trip dominated the news in America and around the world.

    Khrushchev arrived in the United States on September 15, 1959, for an extended visit and summit with Eisenhower. The first days of the Russian’s visit were a mixture of pomp, tourism, and a few moments of tension. While visiting Los Angeles, Khrushchev became infuriated by comments by the head of Twentieth Century Fox Studio and then threw a tantrum when he was barred from visiting Disneyland because of security concerns. On September 25, however, the real business part of Khrushchev’s trip began as he and President Eisenhower met at Camp David in Maryland to begin two days of talks about the Cold War.

    On September 27, Khrushchev concluded his visit. He met briefly to exchange goodbyes with Eisenhower and then was escorted to the airport by Vice President Richard Nixon.

    https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/eisenhower-and-khrushchev-meet-for-talks
    https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/khrushchev-ends-trip-to-the-united-states

    • LOL: Ron Unz
    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  130. @Ron Unz

    Mr Unz,

    It is difficult for me to read what you wrote. You do not have any argument, only fallacies to back your prejudice. The last fallacy is a kind of ad populum. You only believe that if some worker of the NASA knew the truth, he will speak and be a hero. Would he? Seriously. Or would he be treated as a conspiracy theorist, lose his job, if not more? Only look how the dissidents are treated. Do you know Thomas Baron? Do you know Gus Grissom? They spoke some truths.

    Please, do you homework and view the documentary by M. Mazzucco. And come with serious arguments. Because facts obey to the laws of physics and trying to contradict them leads to nowhere.

    The problem you see is that even when a “hero” speaks the truth, nobody is listening. Yes, Armstrong himself told this:

    He addressed “those who can remove one of truth’s protective layers”. How is that you do not understand the meaning? Does it mean that you protect yourself from the truth?

    And now they say that they will go to the moon in 2024. Five years to go. In the sixties they allegedly did it in 6 years. I bet with you one thousand bucks that no American will set a foot on the moon until the 31th December 2025 and come back. If you truly believe that 50 years ago they could do it within 6 years you are sure to win that money easily, don’t you?

    • Agree: Peredur
    • Replies: @Cowboy
  131. apollonian says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    Boiling Down The “Manned Moon Landing” Controversy–There’s NO PROOF, Morons

    Unz says,

    “If the story were true and promoted on a national TV network, why didn’t any of the former NASA employees come forward to express their agreement and immediately become rich and famous as a result?”

    Unz, thou are SUCH a lying, stupid Jew, aren’t thou? For no one gets famous in Jew S A without Jews’ permission. USA is really Jew S A, the “dog” wagged by Israeli “tail.”

    And if Jews want to bury thou, and word comes down fm the masters of the central-bank, then thou shall be buried–all history attests, proves, and demonstrates. And we have the holohoax “deniers” as proof, and David Duke, an excellent expositionist on the subject to verify. Then there are the truthers for 9/11–all persecuted. So cut the crap, please, Jew.

    Here are the facts, suckers: (a) THERE’S NO PROOF for any “manned moon-landing”; the vids are all fakey and surely fraudulent. If moon gravity is six times less than earth’s, those astronauts ought to be breaking records for steps distance and height, and there are other anomalies too.

    (b) So on the one hand we have Unz and the other Jews and suck-alongs who tell us we should beeeeleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeev, like the Judeo-Christians (JC–see Whtt.org and TruthTellers.org for expo), in the lies and lying done by ZOG which always lies lies lies lies.

    (c) Typical, lying Jews keep repeating those of us who hold there were no manned moon-landings are saying it was “scientifically impossible,” but that’s false and unnecessary. All we need say is there’s no proof. To be sure, it very well may be impossible, but that’s beside the pt.

    It’s just lies lies lies lies and lying lying lying by these liars, CONSTANTLY, along w. their stupid attempted ridicule for doubting known liars–give us a break, Jews.

  132. @Peredur

    there was an expedition to Antarctica to obtain rocks inferred to be from the Moon.

    Exactly and this is documented in the Mazzucco documentary. Von Braun himself took part in the expedition. And the conclusions came that the “moon” rocks are amazingly not very different from our Earth rocks. Go figure.

    And now there is this story:

    https://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/moon-rock-may-have-come-from-earth/

    It needs really very imaginative people to build an ad hoc theory that this rock would have been thrown away from the Earth to land on the moon. Occam’s razor tells a diffferent story. A story similar to the gift of a petrified wood to Netherlands.

  133. Arioch says:
    @Justvisiting

    No, i definitely can not like that article.
    It reminds me unflattering descriptions of US and UK news coverage by Bradbury and Windham.

    The presence of astronauts’ boot prints in the lunar dust under the LM and in the neighbourhood is far more than strange. The exhaust speed relative to the descending LM reached almost 3000 m/s, so all the dust within many meters had to be blown away. Given the distance that the exhaust plume would have spread in the absence of an atmosphere, such a situation is only possible if the engine was shut off at a height of several hundred meters during the landing, raising legitimate concern for the lives and safety of the astronauts.

    Breathtaking.

    Oh! Wow! o-ho-ho-ho-ho! Bam, boom, slap!
    Spinning up excitement. Show must go on.

    Then, even more surprising, there’s no dust in its rightful place on the landing pads which remained pristine

    (excitement exclamations cut out, intentionally)

    Open and see –
    So, allegedly there can be only two scenarios.
    1. Moon surface (in this place) is covered with something like sand, and men leave footprints over it.
    2. Moon surface (in this place) is not covered with something like sand, and men leave no footprints.

    That is a very static approach. The world is fixed once and for all and nothing changes.
    But then… look at this very photo the article uses to substance the exclamations. That was not my choice of photo, that was the article’s choice!
    What do we see immediately right off the pad? Wee see *crushed* lunar surface.
    Turns out, the pad is standing not upon some armor plate or yellow bricks road, but upon some not so solid surface that can be easily crushed. Into the dust.

    Sandstone, did article author every heard suck a word? Screw the word, did he/she as a child just played in sand piles??? Did one never experienced sand cork? so solid against a wind, so easy to “saw” wit ha grass leaf, so easy to crush back to disconnected sand by a slightest focused pressure (juet your fingers, holding it while another hand uses grass to saw it) ???

    And the area of footsteps is clearly different from the adjacent “virgin land” area, too.

    So could it be that men’s footware just crushed the fragile “sand cork” of lunar surface, just like the pads did?

    We easily and obviously come to yet another option, dynamic:

    3. Moon surface (in this place) was not covered with something like sand, but the “dust” was CREATED by men’s leaving the footprints and CHANGING the surface doing it.

    Now, i do not say that is exactly what happenned, or what had to happen (can be judged by physical parameters of the materiel, but since we don’t trust NASA we do not know those parameters).
    I don’t know.

    But is COULD had happenned until proven impossible.
    And this option is OBVIOUS when looking at the very photo picked by the article!

    ….however the article skips it. The article finds time and space to make cheap explamations and emotional rollercoaster, but not a one-liner to even mention another possibility. Note event mentioning just to discard it.

    “False dichotomy” method? Wishfulf thinking? Life in an ivory tower not once in a lifetime experiencing a sand pile non-covered under sun and skies? Western MSM technique of “forming reality by omitting crucial facts without telling explicit lies” ?

    I don’t know. But this article looses its charm very quickly.

    • Replies: @Herald
  134. apollonian says: • Website

    America’s Founding Religion Was Christianity–The Real Anti-Semitic Thing–But Now Dominant Religion Is Satanism

    Let me comment now on Linh Dinh’s expo on horrifically hubristic America the degenerate, and “Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler. So hist. is CYCLIC, and empires begin and rise; they peak, as Jew S A has OBVIOUSLY peaked, it’s currency being steadily destroyed, and now we see the empire in DECLINE, on a down-turn, committed to Agenda-21 and -2030 GENOCIDE.

    Dinh totally overlooks the founding religion, Christianity, and hasn’t the slightest clue as to its basic features–anti-Semitic–Christianity upholding the objective principle (Aristotle), Christ = TRUTH (Gosp. JOHN 14:6), which truth requires an objective reality as criterion/premise, against Jew/satanic lies, lying, and liars (JOHN 8:44) founded in extreme subjectivism, “midrash,” and “Oral Law Tradition.” See Talmudical.blogspot.com, RevisionistReview.blogspot.com, and Come-and-hear.com for expo.

    Thus Satanism begins in simplest philosophy, extreme subjectivism, holding mind/consciousness is source and creator of reality, making subject God–Satanism by definition. Satanist “religion” is just elaboration–see Jew “Zohar” (“Cabala”).

    Jews DOMINATE as they’re COLLECTIVISTIC subjectivists, most organized, committed, dedicated, most effective “group-think,” naturally leading, manipulating and dominating the more isolated, “individualist” gentile subjectivists/Satanists, even though far outnumbered by gentiles.

    Instead, what we now see is Christianity, the established thing, totally perverted and turned on its head, supporting Satanism and Jews, esp. Israel. Is there anything more satanic than Agenda-21 and -2030 genocide as official gov. policy?

    So what happened, historically?–well, there was a horrific betrayal in 1861-65 when USA became imperialist dictatorship, the states conquered, crushed, BUT the economic system continuing to dominate, though becoming steadily more monopolistic, working towards the thematic central-bank of 1913 Federal Reserve Act, legalized counterfeiting, nearly, practically INFINITE fiat-currency, removal of REAL MONEY which is commodity-based (“intrinsic value”). See Mises.org for expo; use site search-engine for particular terms.

    Thus in 1913 USA became evermore dominated by a criminal enterprise, the central bank of issue, which is a monopoly–the Fed being exclusive counterfeiters, but this held to being legal and proper–“elastic money supply,” ho ho ho ho (hint–it’s not real money, just “currency,” which is a fraud).

    The suckers decided that that INFINITE currency idea is irresistible–stupid shits can’t see why or how it’s absurd and can’t be that way, there being good reason for gold/silver as proper money, protecting the people fm Jews and Satanists who now run things, working for GENOCIDE, that genocide actually quite apparent in the poison drugs and poison vaccines now being forced on people, the poor fools, not to mention the poison glyphosate herbicides, GMO poison food, poisoned water supplies, geo-engineering and “chem-trails.”

    So Dinh does good enough job of describing; he just doesn’t all the way explain how it happened–USA now the Jew S A, slave and instrument of Jews, Satanists, and Israel.

  135. Arioch says:
    @Peredur

    “Comparing a rock with a picture in a textbook.” Gee, you sound very knowledgeable.

    You put quotes there, so you pretend you quoting my words. But what were my words for real?

    If you have one rock, and a textbook describing some other rock…

    “Describe” word is coming from “script”, from “writing”.

    Rock properties measured meticulously and WRITTEN down. As texts, but yet more as tables wit hmeasured figures. Density, elasticity, solidity, anisotrophy of the two, chemical composition, magnetic transparency, magnetic inertia, radioactivity, and so forth.

    And this all you strike out and replace with “picture”.
    And then you pretend you quoted my words.

    What it was? You genuinely don’t know how textbooks differ from comic books and how letters and figures differ from pictures? Or you perfectly knew it and intentionally misrepresented my words?

    Talk about hoaxes…

    > Similarly, 9/11 truthers don’t know exactly how that was carried out and covered up

    Well, they have very elaborate theories WHY it was covered up, WHO benefitted, HOW benefitted, etc. And despite that “cover up” in the very first years past 9/11 there already were lots of articles and even books about it. Despite the event being unexpected, unprecedented, very short, and having no foreign observers with experience and technologies surpassing American and who would benefit from disproving official story.

    With regard to Apollo program truthers – it is all opposite.
    They have strong arguments about physics and engineering implementation of those flights.
    But their ideas and explanations about political implementation of the hoax are as shaky and fragmentary as NASA’s explanations of technical possibiltiy of the flights.

    • Replies: @Peredur
  136. Peredur says:
    @Arioch

    I was satirizing your comment and giving a sarcastic reply. Maybe you will find the following more to your liking:

    “Let me tell you how science works. Science is about comparisons. You have a book, and it describes a rock. If you have a rock, you know it is the same if it matches the description.” Gee, you sound very knowledgeable.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  137. @Justvisiting

    Well, that still doesn’t answer the question: if there was no Apollo 12 lunar landing, then we would not have the USA Surveyor 3 camera and soil scoop back in the USA.

    Simple and straight forward. Actual physical objects.

    As for the question of Surveyor 3 color rendition, once the USA astronauts got there, they were able to finally describe the chromatic aspects of the moon surface.

    Listen to Buzz Aldrin describe the colors of the lunar soil:

    • Replies: @apollonian
  138. @Arioch

    I guess you are using the trial lawyer approach–prove the “witness” got one set of facts wrong (on purpose, out of ignorance, whatever) and therefore the jury should ignore the rest of their testimony.

    OK–sometimes valid, sometimes not, some juries might get railroaded by that approach.

    A better way to evaluate the “witness” would be to obtain other evidence that either supports or contradicts their primary argument–either Nixon cut a deal with the Russians on the moon hoax or he didn’t.

    I did take a look at information on the Nixon tapes and archives to see if anything interesting was there, but unfortunately every discussion of Apollo, moon, etc. seemed to be just tedious award ceremonies for the astronauts. The infamous Watergate tapes didn’t seem to have anything where Nixon blabbed on the subject to his aides.

    The hunt for real data continues…

  139. apollonian says: • Website
    @Joe Stalin

    Joe, buddy, don’t thou realize thou talks like a moron?–a moronic child. So tell us WHY we wouldn’t have the “…USA Surveyor 3 camera and soil scoop back in the USA” (without manned moon-landing). WTF are thou even talking about, fool?

  140. @utu

    I’d really like to think he’s a little more aware of the pitfalls now and would self monitor. I don’t like restrictions and anyway, JR’s time is better spent elsewhere than writing lengthy comments to minds that aren’t for changing under any circumstances. I think he has interesting viewpoints and cuts to the chase. I admire that and have enjoyed his previous articles.

    • Replies: @RobinG
  141. Surveyor 3 camera on display:

    https://airandspace.si.edu/multimedia-gallery/web12058-2011hjpg

    Surveyor 3 soil sampler photo:

    Page 5 of “Analysis of Surveyor 3 material and photographs returned by Apollo 12”

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

    https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/20jun_apollorelic

    • Replies: @apollonian
    , @Olivier1973
  142. apollonian says: • Website
    @Joe Stalin

    Joe joe, buddy, thanks for the neat photos and then the links, which I didn’t bother to look at, SINCE thou say nothing as to HOW these things prove a “manned moon-landing”–thou don’t seem to be equal to the task w. a mental level of a child. So if thou think thou can provide an explanation how these things thou mention PROVES a manned moon landing, then by all means, speak–this is thy second chance, buddy. Ho ho ho ho ho ho

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
  143. utu says:
    @Rurik

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

    [Air Vice-Marshal ] Mowhoush died while being interrogated by two soldiers associated with the 66th Military Intelligence Brigade.[citation needed] At first the official military report stated that “Mowhoush said he didn’t feel well and subsequently lost consciousness”. However, when the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal erupted, the Pentagon acknowledged that the autopsy report indicated that the cause of death was “asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression”, and that his body showed “evidence of blunt force trauma to the chest and legs”. The Pentagon added that a homicide investigation was underway.

    On January 21, 2006, an American military jury convicted Welshofer of negligent homicide in the death of Mowhoush. A military jury ordered a reprimand and forfeiture of $6,000 in pay, and restricted him to his home, office and church for two months.

  144. @apollonian

    Well buddy, unless you got a Star Trek transporter, the Surveyor 3 components don’t have the capabilities to escape the lunar gravity to come back to earth. Apollo 12 was designed to pick up the parts and bring them back to earth.

    The parts are here on Planet Earth. They were on the lunar surface. Parts made in the USA that were not in the Apollo 12 Command Module when it left earth.

    You didn’t bother to look at the links? Not my problem.

    Continue your drug treatment is about all I can say.

    • Replies: @apollonian
  145. @NoseytheDuke

    Revusky nails it! The Unz Review is the poorer for the lack of JR’s recent articles and more regular commentary so I for one would like the reinstatement of his former publishing privileges to be considered Mr Unz. Cheers

    Hi Nosey. Thanks for the kind words.

    Of course, I am only looking good now because Ron has not got round to utterly demolishing all the points I am making. So, I enjoy it while I can. Once Ron has completely rebutted every point I made, as we know he eventually will, then I’ll feel like I’m two feet tall. (I must be some kinda masochist…)

    As for publishing my articles here, I haven’t been writing all that much of late, but what I have written, I haven’t submitted to UR. If Unz did want to republish this one, I guess he could:

    https://heresycentral.is/revusky/two-hoaxes/

    I would be rather interested in seeing how the UR readership would react to that one.

  146. Polemos says:
    @Linh Dinh

    I used Weil’s “On the Abolition of All Political Parties” in a philosophy class and the students just could not accept her logic at all. For them, all groups inevitably grow into the self-perpetuating (crystal) organisms she diagnoses parties to be, and political parties are what we all want anyway. Young twenty-somethings gearing up to fight against social injustice just cannot accept what she’s warning them to consider about personal responsibility for our own thoughts, or how they will become the organs and pieces of a life form that doesn’t care about their souls at all. They just want to be right and vote for their own.

    But then they nodded along to Orwell’s 1984 and recited the three slogans from memory, like punchlines for bumperstickers, not realizing they too, as with so many in the mainstream, forget the fourth slogan of the Party. They can’t see themselves as religious yet God is Power still holds for them, despite their ostentatious displays of atheism or irreligiosity. Afterall, the people of The Book are the ones who taught them, made this American Empire a country, and practice the self-deception necessary to ignore one’s own contradictions. I’m waiting for the day when people finally recognize Orwell’s ‘antisemitism’ is not subtle in that text, but they will have to disconnect the dots in their own heads, and accept the hard truth that God is not Power. America is a religion, I totally agree, because it must never admit to itself that Power is empty, or it will have to think its own death rather than fear it, throwing its lovers to the rats.

    Thank you for being who you are, Linh. Thank you for writing. Grace follows you, and may your sweat burn off your karma.

    Sorry for being all over the place. Hard to think and write on tiny screens (maybe the point?)

  147. I think the casual, almost dismissive mention and reference to Stanley Kubrick the weakest point of this essay. Twietmeyer, Wiedner, and others have examined the Apollo photographs in light of Kubrick’s prowess as a filmmaker, offering convincing arguments and evidence, some drawn from the techniques and cinematography of 2001, which Kubrick reportedly got as a pay-off for his work for NASA and Spooksville. But then, I suppose no one died at Sandy Hook, either!

  148. apollonian says: • Website
    @Joe Stalin

    Joey Jo Jo Never Had Slightest Clue

    Joey joe-joe, buddy, thou haven’t established (proven) that the components were EVER on the moon in first place, sucker–don’t thou get it?

    It IS thy “problem” Joey jo-jo–thy responsibility to prove, sucker–and thou needs to doing this proving in thy own words, buddy–don’t tell us the proof is in the links, moron.

    Thou seem to be presuming the very pt. to be proven, buddy–can’t thou figure that out?–that there was a manned moon-landing–that fallacy is called “question-begging.” Thou then presumes Apollo 12 then brought it back fm moon–but HOW do thou know that also wasn’t faked like the first landing was faked? There were “pictures”?–those were faked, sucker–can’t thou figure it out?

    Hint: FORGET “Apollo 12,” sucker–thy task is first to prove the first manned moon-landing, thou poor moron.

    Thou say (my notes capped, bracketed):

    “The parts are here on Planet Earth. [OK, GRANTED, BUT THAT’S EASY TO SAY–THEY ALWAYS WERE HERE, NEVER LEFT, AND THOU CAN’T PROVE THEY EVER DID LEAVE, FOOL.]

    “They were on the lunar surface. [THIS IS WHAT THOU NEEDS TO PROVE, SUCKER–WHY DO THOU SKIP OVER THIS, FOOL?]

    “Parts made in the USA that were not in the Apollo 12 Command Module when it left earth.” [AND HOW DO THOU KNOW THIS?–THOU DON’T KNOW IT, SUCKER, THOU MERELY ASSUMES, LIKE THE FOOL THOU OBVIOUSLY ARE.]

    Joe-joe, don’t thou see?–thou just asserts and declares, and thou don’t prove diddly, and thou don’t even have the intelligence to understand thou doing this, thou poor, pathetic creature. What a dumbass.

    And what would the links do to help thy case, moron?–they’d just declare and assert without proving, just like thou idiotically do, right?–and thou don’t even understand thou aren’t proving anything, merely declaring and asserting, and then like a monkey appending “links” to pretend thou accomplishes anything in way of proving, ho ho ho ho.

    Like all morons, thou put the links there just to bluff and pretend there’s “proof” in there somewhere so that thou thyself don’t have to do any proving, eh?–ho ho ho ho ho ho–thou are a true genius, Joey jo-jo, ho ho ho ho ho ho.

    “Drugs,” thou say? Joey jo-jo, drugs are what thou need to doing, buddy–thou couldn’t be MORE stupid than thou are presently, sucker, ho ho hoho ho ho ho. Drugs would probably do thou some good–couldn’t do anything worse than thou are now, sucker, ho ho ho ho ho

    But hey, Joey Jo-jo, we should just beeeeeeleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeev, eh?–that’s all thou really do, right?–and all the “links” and pictures–those are all just for show and effects, right? Ho ho ho ho ho ho ho

    Hint: Joey jo jo, the ONLY “proof” for any “theory” is in sense-perception–which we don’t have. “Photographs” can too easily be faked, fooling a poor monkey like thyself, we all see. Thou had two chances, Joey jo-jo-jo, and thou never caught-on to the problem of proving–for thou never had the slightest clue, thou just beeeeeeeeleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevin’, like ZOG wants thou to doing, eh? Poor, little bastard.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
    , @Joe Stalin
  149. @swamped

    Some years ago there were no taxes on real estate except for a minor fee when it changed hands. Once you paid for your house you were set for life, with permanent security. But since the powers that be imposed taxes corresponding to current market valuations, which always go up, it’s clear that we no longer own our own homes but are only paying rent to the government for the privilege of temporarily living there. Before long people will reside in houses only to raise children. Having raised their children, the ever increasing taxes will force home “owners” to sell out n move into a trailer for their “golden years”. Why bother getting to know one’s neighbors, or participating in community affairs, or even repairing one’s home, if rising taxes are certain to force one to sell out n leave? And people wonder why there are no more communities in the US n why civic spirit has vanished. Throw in the absurdity of multiculturalism, better described as balkanization, n the term United States has become merely a geographic expression.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    , @eah
  150. Erebus says:
    @Arioch

    Keynesian state-ruled capitalism vs ultra-liberal capitalism ruling states.
    I doubt difference is so fundamental like it was.

    No. The difference that makes a difference is whether international power structures, incl financial, are dominated by a single Global Hegemon or are to be decentralized in a Multi-polar matrix of regional power centres.

    Words, words, words (c)

    Spend a little more time reading and a little less time typing gobbledygook, and you may think differently, or at least for the first time. Quite a bit of real work is being done.

    Knowledge is so vague the word…

    … to those who have little presently, and poor prospects for more. The rest of us know what it means.

    At the same time, hoaxers “need to come up with Either a reasonable/plausible explication of how all” world nations decided and succeeded to take part in the hoax.

    No, hoaxers need only show that the popular narrative is unproved, or (more strongly) implausible. There is never any need to prove corollaries, even necessary corollaries, to fully make the hoaxers’ case.

    • Agree: Olivier1973
  151. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Yep, still exposing the nonsense that YOU said.

    You expect Ron Unz to pull your chestnuts from the fire for what YOU said?

    I’m just a messenger, your own words are the message.

    http://www.codoh.com

  152. Anonymous [AKA "Cool Story Brah"] says:
    @Gross Terry

    +100

  153. Erebus says:
    @Peredur

    Actually, the rocks analysed by China’s Chang’e-3 (Jade Rabbit 1) differ significantly from anything brought back by NASA. However, as the sample sizes are quite small and the landing sites fairly far apart, it’s not clear that this proves anything.

    • Replies: @Peredur
  154. Icy Blast says:

    Why doesn’t anyone mention the Big Three Germans – von Braun, Dornberger, and Rudolph? They made the whole NASA thing happen. I guess they’ve been swept down the memory hole to make way for Shaniqua, Taniqua, and Tawana. And a lot of American Exceptionalists would rather believe the whole thing was a hoax than to give the Germans any credit. (Notice that since all the Germans and their proteges have died or retired, NASA and the entire aerospace complex has been failing. The F-35 debacle is just the latest example.)

  155. Cyrano says:
    @apollonian

    Hey, hey, hey, I am in charge of the insults department on this site – you stupid monkey (even though Ron Unz might not have officially sanctioned this self-appointment). I suggest you change you handle from apollonian to faggotonian for the sake of accuracy, you degenerate queer. How do you know that the moon landing didn’t happen? Were you there filming the moon surface the entire time between 1969-1972? That’s the only way you can be a credible witness to something that didn’t happen. Even then, stupid as you are, they might have sneaked up behind you with their rocket when you were not paying attention, you stupid ape

    • LOL: apollonian
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  156. mcohen says:
    @Anonmalayexp

    Hey thanks for the link.there is some good stuff in there

  157. @Jonathan Revusky

    Hi there,

    I’ll react.

    You obviously don’t know much about the taste in women among different cultures and haven’t heard the saying that “Arabs buy their meat by the kilo”. If you haven’t noticed, blacks, Arabs, and muslims like their women fuller. You know, according to them, there is more to xxxx in that case. So you shouldn’t judge by your own perception, like “one man’s meat …”

    You also draw on a few cases and then (at least you give that impression) you extrapolate to other incidents. This being a hoax won’t bring back to life all those others they’ve slay raped.

    Maybe these women should be commended for fighting back even hoaxing rapes. After all it’s a war out there. Didn’t someone say “by any means necessary”?

    Since we always have to justify ourselves, I’ll say first of all that I’m against all rapes, and that I’m also against rapes perpetrated by invaders, be it American GIs in Japan or muslims in Europe.

    The extremes left-wing media is about 60-70% the same as extreme right-wing media, except one lot blame the whites while the other lot blame the blacks and other assorted coloureds. I’m sure they could have even more in common if they stopped discussing history. Now if they could at least get together on issues they agree on, maybe we could at least put an end to western military interventionism and the excesses of Zionism, if not Judaism.

    • Troll: Jonathan Revusky
    • Replies: @jeff stryker
  158. Amon says:
    @durd

    You did factor in the lower gravity right?

    • Replies: @Herald
    , @durd
  159. Amon says:

    Another moon hoax article… Great.

    Another cult like mentality versus cult like mentality… great.

    Another plus 1000 comments of slurs and insults… great.

    No matter how much evidence is presented it will not be believed for it goes against the teaching of the cult.

    The only way to win, is to not play

    • Replies: @Polemos
    , @apollonian
  160. Cowboy says:

    Just as Buzz Aldrin in reality planted the Masonic flag on the moon and claimed it for the Craft, so will I plant the masonic flag in this thread to try to bring some reality here.

    The Constitution is a masonic document and the “moon landing” was a masonic psyop. When Mr Dinh says that the moon landing is part of building up “America as Religion”, I retort: no, the moon landing was about building up Technocracy and New Ageism as the One World Religion. This modern worship of “change” for change’s sake is artificial, and it comes from the masons.

    Freemasonry: “When man reaches new worlds, Masonry will be there.”

    In the November 1969 edition of The New Age Magazine, there is an extensive article by Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, 33°, the Manager of the Apollo Program Command and Service Modules; Deputy Manager, Gemini Program; Manager, Project Mercury.

    On page 13, we read:

    Note how many of the astronauts themselves are Brother Masons: Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr.; L. Gordon Cooper, Jr.; Donn F. Eisle; Walter M. Schirra; Thomas P. Stafford; Edgar D. Mitchell, and Paul J. Weitz. Before his tragic death in a flash fire at Cape Kennedy on January 27, 1967, Virgil I. “Gus” Grissom was a Mason, too. Astronaut Gordon Cooper, during his epochal Gemini V spaceflight in August of 1965, carried with him an official Thirty-third Degree Jewel and a Scottish Rite flag. Via the lunar plaque, the Masonic ensignia and flag, and the Masonic astronauts themselves – Masonry already is in the space age. Can we doubt Freemasonry and its spiritual relevance to the modern era when even its material representatives have today made historic inroads into the infinite expanses of outer space?

    Back then, Freemasonry wasn’t shy about admitting that the “Craft” is essentially a spiritual endeavor, either. In fact, right before Kleinknecht writes some bios on the Masonic astronauts (as well as Mason James Edwin Webb, the NASA administrator from 1961-68), he includes these words: “The mission of the Craft has always been one of salvation, but until now its field of endeavor was the individual and the bringing of him to the light. Masonry cannot think in these terms now. All men everywhere must hear our message or all men everywhere will perish” (ibid., pp. 15-16; my emphasis).

    Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, by the way, was/is the brother of C. Fred Kleinknecht, 33°, Sovereign Grand Commander, The Supreme Council, 33° (Mother Council of the World), Southern Jurisdiction, USA, Washington.

    Below the “More” are some of the Masonic moon landing images. I put them there to tighten up the tread because it could be a long one.

  161. @Biff

    BIFF

    Why would America be a religion, and not Australia or New Zealand or Canada. After all they are relatively new countries which attracted immigrants and refugees to.

    • Replies: @Biff
    , @Plato's Dream
  162. @Commentator Mike

    MIKE

    It isn’t Americans grooming English girls in Okinawa. It is Pakistanis. Americans, most of whom are Irish or Italians or Polish with nary a drop of English blood, really have nothing to do with the UK. The US does not even have much of a military presence in England since the air force bases closed.

    I don’t know why Brits are so focused on the States.

    When you accuse the average Yank of knowing nothing about the UK you are right. They know and care little.

    And yet Brits are endless fascinated with America. A land of corrupt Irish-American politicians with IRA sympathies, ghetto blacks and Mexicans. A largely poor country with a few pockets of obscene wealth.

    America is not your problem, bro. The Pakistani who is probably grooming your 12 year old daughter outside 2nd form as I write this is your problem, mate.

  163. No time to comment, I have to attend a captain planet mass, its compulsory, and the radio enriches the day on the classics channel with Hollywood film music for the 6 millionth time this week. Lovely.

  164. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Justvisiting

    Thanks for the link and photos.

    I really like the duct tape on the landers foot, plus the strange [knife?] shadow that’s in a completely different direction to the rest of the shadows, plus the fact that the entire lander foot appears to be an artificially created overlay [ i.e. pre- photoshop] – just check out the line were the foot contacts the “moon” surface. And what’s the deal with the small [electrical conduit?] pipe on the ground that emerges from the landers foot?

    And let’s not fergit the tin foil wrap! Classic stuff!

    Regards, onebornfree

  165. Cowboy says:

    Super Jews with their stratospheric IQ’s can’t even land on the moon, so how could the goyim? There are only two possible answers:

    a) The Goyim never landed on the moon
    b) The Moon is anti-semitic

    Israel fails attempted Moon landing as comm with spacecraft lost

    Beresheet’s engine stopped working around 10 kilometers from the surface, with the vehicle crashing into the Moon at a speed of over 130 meters per second.

    Beresheet, which is Hebrew for the biblical phrase “in the beginning,”

    But at least the jews have a greater, holier purpose than the Masonic goal of riding a chariot in their new world.

    Israel Is Sending Holocaust Testimony And A Torah To The Moon

    In the beginning there was nothing, and darkness hung upon the face of the deep. In 2019, there will be many things: Books of science, technology, art, and literature, children’s artwork, the Declaration of Independence, a Torah, the testimony of a Holocaust survivor.

    Look Mom, the jews used the same incredible insulating tin foil to wrap their lander that the Freemasons did:

    History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
  166. onebornfree says: • Website

    “Israel’s Beresheet spacecraft fails to land safely on the moon “:

    https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/How-to-watch-the-Beresheet-spacecraft-land-on-the-moon-586454

    No comment required , except : 🙂

    Regards, onebornfree

  167. @Thomm

    >I am not sure if Linh Dinh is being facetious

    Of course you aren’t.

  168. @Joe Stalin

    Fantastic!

    https://www.thefreedictionary.com/fantastic

    Here is part of what NASA wrote:

    These studies showed that the hardware was very resistant to damage in the severe lunar environment. Analyses of the material also showed the nature of micrometeoroids, cosmic rays, and the solar wind.

    So, so, so… micrometeoroids, cosmic rays and… no damage either on astronauts suits or on any roll of film? Amazing.

  169. j2 says:
    @Mike P

    Thanks for your comment, I did not notice this article.

    I will watch the video.

    About Sabino’s radiation values for LEO, I did notice that the trapped proton part is too large and corresponds to a higher altitude LEO orbit, but changing it the results match fine. My summary of this dosage is in:
    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2019/04/10/americans-could-have-gone-to-the-moon-but-did-they/

    I agree with your argument that the declination of the trajectory taken by Apollo 11 in the beginning is strange if the intention is to fly across VABs as announced.

    I also looked at the shadow photo posted by Sparkon and agree that it must be photoforgery by NASA
    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2019/04/11/1407/

    As Ron Unz suggested Phil Plait, an astronomer, PhD, and having worked as an astronomer in NASA, I looked at his arguments. Several of his arguments are wrong, including what he says about the shadows. He was born in 1964, so I wonder if he even saw the Apollo moon landing in the television. It makes me a real expert as I saw it on television. Ron Unz, being 5 years younger than me, probably did not understand the technical issues at that time. I also wonder how much experience Phil Plait has about photographic forgeries. One should at least have forged something to be an expert of a topic like that (I have not and claim no expertise).

    About this issue that I asked you to look at, I still think it is as I thought. If Apollo 7 was on a low LEO and the trapped protons is low, then the GCR is about the same for Apollo 7 and Apollo 11 even if Apollo 11 went to the Moon. The difference is the time and VABs. You have about the same GCR anywhere outside the Earth’s atmosphere, so it is about the same in low LEO or in the Moon or space voyage. For that reason one cannot prove that Apollo 11 did not go to the Moon in this way.

    But it is very strange that NASA did not study VAB radiation and put sufficient radiation shielding to Apollo CM. NASA is almost army and armies plan everything. If three officers make a trip with a private car, you can be sure that one of them made the trip plan and they have breaks in intended places and all. They plan every operation and improvise only if needed. Of course, it the goal was to fly through VABs, NASA would have planned this part and added the necessary shielding for the potentially deadly small part. As they did not, they did not plan to fly through VABs.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  170. Jeff,

    I don’t disagree. I was referring to an article Jonathan linked about a fat white British bitch falsely claiming she was raped by muslims in the UK. I think Jonathan claims that most of those Muslim on white rapes, including the ones in Cologne on New Year’s Eve, are fakes and hoaxes. Maybe a few are, but most are true.

    But American GIs have no business in the far East just as immigrants have no business in Europe and US, but then nobody of influence cares what I, you, or us here on UR, think. Oh, except maybe some pathetic liberal haters with time on their hands to get people they disagree with in trouble for thought and hate crimes.

    Cheers.

    • Replies: @jeff stryker
  171. j2 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    “If you had to bet a moderately large sum of money on whether men went to the moon back then (obviously, the assumption is that the truth is revealed after the wager, maybe by God… it’s just a thought experiment…) how would you bet your money, Mr. j2?”

    I think that if NASA intended to send a manned spaceship to the Moon, it would have studied the radiation problem and added a sufficient radiation shielding to the CM of Apollo.

    NASA had the technical capability of measuring that all walls of the CM had e.g. equivalent of 25 mm of aluminium. This is close to the average the weight of the metal they used gives, so it would not much add the weight, maybe not at all. Just to move metal from one place to another. All they needed to do is to put thicker walls to the 30% weakest parts.

    But they did not do it. Ipso, they did not plan to fly through VABs.

    You ask wrong questions like, did they have the technical capability at that time. How can I know? How can you know? I do not ask questions that cannot be answered. I ask questions of the type that can be answered and which can solve the problem in hand. I ask is there a problem that we do know they could not solve. As an example, they did not have protection against proton storms when in the Moon (if they went to the Moon). Then I say, this is an unsolved problem, because it is unsolved so far, space suits give 0.25 g/cm2 protection only.

    You asked what was the probability, how lucky they had to be. In those years there were about 8 larger magnetic storms in a year. Mostly these storms lasted one day. There were about 2 Apollo flights in a year and maybe in these 2 flights the crew was vulnerable for 15 days. So, pick these 15 days a year so that they avoid 8 bad days in the year. 15 days is about 1/20. The answer is P=(19/20)^8=0.66. They had 66% probability of no storms during the flights, 33% probability of storms. About 3 of those storms were very bad and deadly. So, (19/20)^3=0.86. They had a 14% chance of having some crew killed in a solar superstorm. These probabilities are in my opinion too high to be accepted for a live television reality show.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  172. Biff says:
    @jeff stryker

    Why would America be a religion, and not Australia or New Zealand or Canada.

    Going to public school in America as a young lad, it was illegal for the school staff to take you to a church, but it wasn’t illegal for them to bring the church to you in the form of a flag, statues, idols, pledges, and a whole lot of stories – works of fiction designed to sell, Sell, SELL! Just like any other religion.

    Support the troops! They are fighting for the most abstract ideal a religion could have – freedom.

  173. RobRich says: • Website
    @Thomm

    They’ve already figured out both how and an economics/scientific justification for US colonies, towns, or at least research stations floating in the atmospheres of Venus, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. Libertarians sponsored a conference on that with the AAS in 1977.

    So both saying it can’t be done or making sarcasm fail.

    Libertarians–the ultimate militant Americans–and allies have an annual or so conference series to build regular and FTL starships for interstellar Republics. They are serious on Civilization likely centered on a libertarianizing US/OAS evolving to interstellar confederacy, and NASA and DARPA are sponsors of the international conferences .

    USA.

  174. j2 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    “Well, just how lucky is that? Can we quantify it?”

    And to the chance of 33% of being in the space during a major solar storm and 14% chance of it of dying in each year (two trips a year), we have to add the VAB problem. It can also be quantified.

    Mike P provided a reference that 30% of Apollo CM was below 4 g/cm2 and 12% below 3 g/cm2. Let us agree that these protections are not sufficient. We cannot average these values with the rest of the protection. We must say that 30% of the places in the CM got protection less than 4 g/cm2 and 12% of the places got less than 3 g/cm2. As the crew was three men, we can assume that one of the three men got protection less than 4 g/cm2. That is still 15 mm of aluminium, but his dosage is higher than the mission dosage says. This astronaut would still not die from this dosage as it was only for a short time, but it would not have been healthy, if they did fly through VABs.

  175. @Commentator Mike

    MIKE

    AMERICAN GI’S OVERSEAS (My Experience)

    * In Dubai some US black US sailors got off a carrier and managed to get into a vicious brawl with Arab locals in a Kentucky Fried Chicken within 10 minutes. I don’t know how you get into a brawl in a KFC in broad daylight stone cold sober, but they did.

    * one French-Canadian sailor went off with some locals who promised him booze on his shore leave. They indeed got him drunk and then something like 18 of them sodomized him and left him lying in the desert with his trousers down bleeding out his anus. I worked for a media outlet and when you work for the local press you find out what the government tells them to suppress.

    * Also in Dubai, some US Marines began harassing an Australian friend of mine and his family at a fairly upmarket Mexican Restaurant called Pavo Real. He was with his wife and family and for no reason at all these boozed-up US Marines began to hassle him. My Australian friend was a nice guy but had been a bouncer in university and was a big guy. In a blind panic he punched one out to protect his family.

    * In the Philippines, a Marine on leave visiting his girlfriend who was a neighbor, pulled a knife on someone. He spent a few hours in jail. I called the US Embassy and they bounced him. He returned to Afghanistan.

    * Many of the black Americans living in Philippines were ex-serviceman. Most of them came from ghettos in the US so awful that the Philippines is actually an improvement so they take their military pension there. In this Sergeant’s case, he was so abusive that some Filipinos broke into his house and stabbed him to death. The guards were probably complicit. He was so hated by all Filipinos that there was never a suspect.

    * My Cebu coworker was an Australian cop who had stumbled upon a US Navy sailor being attacked by Emus patrolling the Sydney park. The sailor had decided to hurtle cans of lager at at a flock and they attacked him enraged.

    NB Australia banned US Navy personnel or at least curtailed their shore leave to an extremely restricted perimeter.

    When you have been overseas for 20 years, you hear of these things. Most are alcohol related.

    Anybody in the US can walk off the street and enlist. Most of them are high school educated, not the white-collar professionals who work overseas as civilians and are usually 25 or older.

  176. Cowboy says:
    @Olivier1973

    Gus Grissom was a freemason as was his father. He participated in the rituals and took the oaths, as did hid father. His very presence in the Apollo program was likely directly a result of him being a member of the craft.

    He was hoping to become the big masonic demigod, riding the Saturn V, travelling with Apollo, then flying the double headed Eagle lander onto the moon, to plant the flag of Freemasonry there. The ultimate masonic orgasm.

    But he found out what the Masons were up to, he found out that he was the chump. That is when he wanted out, and he paid their price. He had sold his soul to Satan but Satan collected sooner than
    Grissom had planned.

  177. iffen says:

    It is rather sad to see someone who has a gift for seeing and writing about the “little people” of America and their unrequited and smashed dreams turn his talents to lampooning and squashing the dreams of the “little people” of Vietnam.

  178. This fellow is a pretentious fop but makes a fair case that 60s vid tech was too primitive to fake footage.

    • Replies: @j2
  179. Linn Dinh often writes insightful things, and he is usually right, but this time he crapped on his own prose by appearing a little too ignorant and gullible regarding moon landing hoax hypotheses and cons.

    It is a waste of time to go into all the reasons why he is is wrong about this, but since he made a big deal about the photographs being too perfect, let’s just direct anyone with the time to go look through ALL of the Apollo photographs.

    The Apollo Image Gallery is part of The Project Apollo Archive, a labor of love by a hobbyist/layman expert named Kipp Teague who has studied Apollo for decades. It has been on the net for a long time. Go to the little menu in the upper left and click on any mission. Every Hasselblad photo ever taken on the Moon is there.

    (Note to poets: The blue words at the beginning of the previous paragraph are what is called a hyperlink. Just click on it.)

    Look through ALL the landings (Dinh, like the general public, focuses only on the first.) You will find examples like this one from Apollo 15, which I just happened on in about thirty seconds:

    Let us also note, for the benefit of the ignorant, that the astronauts on the Moon could be heard talking back and forth with Houston about proper exposure times and f-stops (and yes, WITH the time delay required by the speed of light). Half the world’s geniuses on the ground were thinking about things like that, and those particularly small details were not really too hard to figure out.)

    I am sure my comment is a waste of time, and it is as far as I will go here. Some things are just so infuriatingly stupid, and their espousers so patently ignorant, that my usual reaction is just to turn away. Better men, including Ron Unz, have bothered more than I ever will to argue against the stubborn.

  180. Linh my man, you have done it again, another brilliant look into the soul of a nation that is steadily becoming as black as coal. They say in time that all good things must end, but a closer look tells us it was never good from the start. A house built on the sands of lies, corruption, savagery, greed, and flat out immorality will never stand, at least not for long.

    I gaze in awe as our latest “Liar In Chief” transitions from the MAGA man into the MIGA man. Just like all before him campaign promises are soon forgotten as his real owners grab his reigns and put the spurs to him. He is soon galloping in the direction of the new version of that same old Judaic dream of a one world government to be run out of Jerusalem where Gods chosen will rule over us Goy with an iron fist.

    Again, great article, and I will leave with this song that best describes what has become of our dearly beloved America, now nothing more than a “broken down angel, with no sunshine in her eyes just clouds of grey.”

  181. j2 says:
    @Sick of Orcs

    “This fellow is a pretentious fop but makes a fair case that 60s vid tech was too primitive to fake footage. ”

    I think you have a good point. It was incomparably more difficult to fake frames in video at that time than to go the the Moon at that time, but as the Americans went to the Moon, as you argue, they could have easily faked video footage. They could do one and the other, easily.

    • Replies: @Sick of Orcs
  182. @iffen

    IFFEN

    Linh has been both of them, though perhaps for a fleeting moment he was slated to be the next “Joy Luck Club” Asian hot new writer of the literati.

    That must make his fall from brief grace and a promising career very steep indeed.

    Someone like myself was nobody in the US but, having never known anything better, is comparably better off overseas.

    • Replies: @iffen
  183. Herald says:
    @Amon

    It’s lower gravity not no gravity!

  184. Herald says:
    @Arioch

    Your post is eloquent but quite pointless, being based on nothing more than wishful thinking. As for article itself, it is perhaps only butt hurt true believers, who might find it lacking charm.

  185. @j2

    Thanks for your comment.

    There’s also this tidbit about the statistical probability a hoax is revealed within a certain timeframe dependent on number of conspirators.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/604938/this-mathematical-formula-shows-why-large-scale-conspiracies-are-quickly-exposed/amp/

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  186. GMC says:

    A great article – As I was drinking bauxiday in Vietnam , watching a Huge Moon come up over the Mekong river , I told Saan – you know – there are GIs on that Moon – too. She looked at me thru her rice paddy hat and gave me another hit of that nasty rice moonshine. True story – Nam 70 -71 Vinh Long

  187. Erebus says:
    @j2

    You ask wrong questions like, did they have the technical capability at that time. How can I know? How can you know? I do not ask questions that cannot be answered. I ask questions of the type that can be answered and which can solve the problem in hand.

    There is a fundamental technical question that can be answered, and that is whether the Saturn V actually had the thrust to lift everything to the required orbit.

    Several people, incl Soviet Phd rocket scientists have published analyses indicating the F1 engine’s design meant it necessarily fell well short of its claimed (and required) performance. If it did, that would put paid to the whole expedition.

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
  188. anon[137] • Disclaimer says:

    Once US lands in a place US never leaves.

    Plus, technology 1000 times advanced over 60s.

    If ’69 was true, today we would have weekly lunar tours.

    And returns.

  189. @Buzz Mohawk

    They forgot to airbrush out the UFO in the top center of the photo. 😉

  190. Herald says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Ron has apparently tried to put this one to bed but his ‘hoax’ rebuttals do not carry anything like the weight of his normal fare. Quite frankly, Ron, like most believers, seems to be well out of his depth here and not all that surprising really, as he openly admits that he didn’t know the ‘Moon landings’ were being seen as a controversial subject in some quarters, until just a couple of years ago. As for many, there is a heap of catching up to do, but for most cognitive dissonance will remain the enemy, that can never be overcome, thus leaving these poor souls forever wedded to their false reality.

  191. @anon

    Linh Dinh is the best writer here, bar none.

  192. Peredur says:
    @Erebus

    Also, it looks like no missions other than US Apollo and USSR Luna are said to have returned samples (and I have doubts about both of them). The US and USSR sent a number of unmanned missions to the Moon before the supposed Apollo landings. Some of these analyzed the lunar soil. Some of these soft-landing attempts failed, with the landers crashing into the Moon. The Apollo mission was much more challenging because of the greater weight, if nothing else. It looks like the LEMs weighed more than ten times what the unmanned landers weighed, approximately. None of the Apollo landers are said to have crashed, which is unbelievable.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
  193. JMcG says:

    I have the same amount of evidence of the moon landings as I do of the war in Vietnam. It’s all second hand and easily faked.

  194. joe webb says:

    Third Worlder envy manifest on every page.

    JW

  195. It hurts me to say it but if we go down this route, next we will be debating “Flat earth vs Round Earth” so Linh, please don’t go down this path.

    Linh, I was a professional photographer for 30 years and ten of these years I spent shooting just big events conducted in halls, indoor locations or five star hotels. 99% of the time I got the exposure right and the clients were satisfied. I bought an expensive Japanese light meter.
    Please don’t be so so bitter. I know most Americans you will have met in bars were assholes but the moon landing and the subsequent landings were true.

  196. @Thomm

    Mr Linh, hate amerika as much as you want but keep your credibility and reputation intact.

    I do support you on your views on the Banksters and Zionists.

    If this kind of conspiracy theories continue i.e” Moon landing was a hoax”, then UNZ review will be just another discredited channel like that of Alex Jones’.

  197. @Linh Dinh

    Linh, do you honestly believe that the moon landing by Armstrong was a hoax?????

  198. Cowboy says:
    @Peredur

    “None of the Apollo landers are said to have crashed, which is unbelievable.”

    Even more believable than that is how, when their stoneage wire-wrapped memory core computer “overloaded”, exactly as had been simulated a month earlier, Brother Armstrong boldly disabled the computer and brought the LEM into a perfect manual masonic landing on the moon. With only seconds to spare! Masons. First time every time.

    • Agree: Peredur
    • LOL: Kiel
    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  199. Linh is’t very savvy about scientific stuff. Lets hear Ron Unz’s views.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  200. anon[327] • Disclaimer says:

    Easy proof. Return.
    60s stuff in Smithsonian or basement somewhere.
    Reuse since 2019 technology can’t repeat.

  201. Ron Unz says:
    @Rev. Spooner

    Linh is’t very savvy about scientific stuff. Lets hear Ron Unz’s views.

    Well I’ve already written several thousand words of comments on this thread and the previous Moon Hoax article explaining in considerable detail why I think the Moon Hoax theory is so absolutely, totally ridiculous. As near as I can tell, the whole silly nonsense was probably launched by a 2001 “conspiracy show” on the FoxTV network capitalizing on the popularity of the X-Files series.

    Since it doesn’t look like my efforts swayed a single Moon Hoaxer and I’m busy with other things, I doubt I’ll try any further ones.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Olivier1973
  202. Cowboy says:
    @Rev. Spooner

    Hey Rev. Mooner! Get a grip! Get yer panties out of a bunch.

    It was all fake, and stupid yokels like you bought it hook line and sinker. You should be asking yourself “where do I go to get my brain back”?

    What I find particularly embarrassing for America, and I was once a US person, is that these commentors keep showing up and make these ridiculous and indignant responses, but their best argument is always blather like this:

    If this kind of conspiracy theories continue i.e” Moon landing was a hoax”, then UNZ review will be just another discredited channel like that of Alex Jones’.

    Even Ron Unz has been rendered into a brainless Zombie by his inability to present any cogent argument for why the landings are real, other than “Science”.

    The 800lb Gorilla that no one discusses, because of the obsession with proving or disproving individual aspects of the fraud, is the big picture. We now have the advantage of hindsight and the wisdom that comes with watching narratives get destroyed. More recent historical events are taking shape as older lies become debunked and deconstructed.

    – Roosevelt and his war mongering banker buddies stole the people’s gold in 1933.
    – Wilson and Roosevelt dragged the US into WWI or WWII against the peoples will
    – Korea was a UN psyop
    – Vietnam was about control of the drug trade
    – CIA are the biggest drug traders on the planet
    – Kennedy was assassinated by Mossad with CIA help
    – Reagan’s “America, city on a hill” was cruel joke.
    – Mossad and the CIA pulled of a complete coup of government in Sept 11, 2001.
    – The Constitution is worthless, and the biggest enemy to the entire planet is the US.
    – Wesley Clark’s “7 countries in 5 years leak”
    – Israel’s on going Genocide of the Palestinians and all its neighbors.

    If all of this doesn’t make the timing and absurdity of the moon landing an 800lb gorilla for you, then most likely you are a brainwashed American yokel.

    • Agree: apollonian
  203. j2 says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    You included an Apollo photo. What is your claim concerning this photo? What do you say it shows? I am just checking the photos, so I would like to hear your argument. What is special with this photo? Is is something you could not possibly do in the studio, or is it something you could not possibly do in the Moon? Or is it something you could not possibly do because of logical reasons? What is your point?

  204. anon[327] • Disclaimer says:

    In science, claim not acceptable unless rep li cable.

    Repeat ’69 claim or accept legit doubt and claims of hoax.

  205. @apollonian

    To paraphrase Chris Rock: “How do you hide stuff from “apollonian?” Put it on a website!”

    Funny how you ignored the transmisson from Apollo 16 mission picked up straight from the lunar surface by the Gemans.

    Anyway, double the doze of Prozac as it might help.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    , @apollonian
  206. Why are so many Unzers conspiracy theorists? Openness coupled with non-conformity?

    The problem with grand conspiracy theories can be summed up succinctly: “wonderful theory, wrong species.” If you have worked in a large organization and are not autistic you’d understand how impossible it is to coordinate a conspiracy on this scale.

    These are government employees, much like you and me. They’re not homicidal sociopaths that will pull the trigger on thousands (911) or take a fake moon landing to their grave. This is especially true for anything that necessitates the perfect coordination and secrecy of literally tens of thousands of people. (How do you even find 10,000 or so sociopaths to perfectly coordinate the 911 attacks?)

    It would be easier to put a man on the moon than to coordinate a conspiracy faking putting a man on the moon in complete secrecy with tens of thousands of Homo sapiens.

    Finally, if the moon landings and 911 ARE faked, then maybe these global overlords deserve to rule us. Anyone that can pull that off probably does know what’s best for me, open borders and all.

    Humans – and everything we create – is incredibly decentralized and, in a way, disorganized. That’s what’s really scary. There isn’t a secret cabal at the wheel. No one is at the wheel.

    *This is the only conspiracy theory that may be true because it’s based on ineptitude, not the perfect coordination and secrecy of thousands:

  207. @The scalpel

    It was a typo. He meant your anus (certainly a gas giant) and one could land on that though it would take a precise aim.

    No, he meant Uranus! (But not yours, Thomm’s! 🙂 )

  208. @Sin City Milla

    I thought the same thing when he mentioned income taxes.

    We, in LaLa Land don’t own a damned thing; we even pay, big time, for the privilege of renting our own homes from one government or another!!!

    The system and people (including moi) are stupid to the max.

  209. Cowboy says:
    @Anonymous Jew

    Jews have already learned to lie before they they are born, and its downhill from there. It is genetic. They shamelessly lie in front of their children. Their “Thanksgiving” is about their genocide of other peoples and their being forgiven for a year of lying, cheating, committing fraud, murder, and even extracting the blood of goyim boys for their matza bread on purim.

    So you, as a jew, come here to the majority of goyim readers, and kvetch about:

    “wonderful theory, wrong species.” If you have worked in a large organization and are not autistic you’d understand how impossible it is to coordinate a conspiracy on this scale.

    What about the holohoax? 6 million jewish survivors claimed to have been gassed, and all the jews across the planet lied to cover it up. A conspiracy for all of the ages.

    Or how about how your people dragged the US into WWI under totally false pretenses so your people could genocide the Palestinians and steal their land. Gigaconspiracy come true.

    Or how about the way jews still lie about murdering Jesus, basically calling all of Christianity one giant “conspiracy theory”.

    Jews cannot discern the truth because genetically they are unable to stop lying.

  210. @brian boru

    This is the first piece that I have read by this particular author and I enjoyed it thoroughly.

    To add some fuel to your own tiny fire I have the following notes…

    Last night (4/11/2019) I attended the monthly meeting of my Radio Control Aircraft Club. I knew what I was getting into when I joined but being retired I wanted a hobby that would get me out the house. Since I had flown radio control sailplanes in the 1970s and 1980s I thought returning to the hobby would be a nice way to get back into an original interest of mine.

    Well last night the club members decided to “remember the moon landing” and many told of where they were when it happened. They told their stores with a sense of awe and admiration for the astronauts that went there not one thinking or even suggesting that there may have been a “flaw in the ointment” of this story.

    As a software engineer my entire professional career I simply could not wrap my head around the idea that the moon lander’s computer(s) had less power than a Commodore 64 that wouldn’t be released until around 1979 or so. In addition, the science of miniaturization was still in its infancy in the 1960s while IBMs first major mainframe computer introduction, the 360/S, was based on wired circuits for processing. So how does all this type of rather primitive technology resist the massive vibrations of an enormous rocket being launched into space?

    I dared not ask since all the members were quite content to retell their teenage memories of where they were during this momentous event. However, two people said things that really told me just how stupid Americans tend to be on the whole.

    An elderly gentleman spoke of the fact that while the moon landing was in progress he was on a luxury cruise, the cruise ship entirely built at the expense of German reparations to Israel for their supposed Holocaust.

    I wanted to ask this gentleman if he thought he deserved to cruise on a ship paid for by a nation that was forced into such a swindle (reparations) by the US government along with the guilt of that nation that even today is still paying the price for something that has never been able to be proven scientifically.

    The president of the club even told a story that was even much odder and actually suspiciously told that the entire event was nothing more than a cinematic extravaganza. The club’s president’s favorite past time when he was an older teenage was to take a car (legally) out on to Long Island, NY with his best friend and their girl friends and drive far enough to get lost from which they would have to find himself back home.

    Well, in this recounting of this tale he explained he explained that they did in fact get lost and found themselves in empty parking lot where they were turning around to get home. Suddenly they were stopped by 4 heavily armed guards, thoroughly searched along with their car, and then asked if anyone of these youngsters knew where they were. The club president recounted that they told these guards that none of them knew where they were when one of the guards informed the 4 teenagers that they were on Grumman secured property where the moon landing was being reenacted for whatever reasons they were not told why.

    Now why would Grumman grounds in 1960s Long Island be supporting the re-enactment of the moon landing while it was still in progress. The paradox of such a statement completely went over the heads of the teenage interlopers.

    And why would a security guard for such an organization even say such a thing?

    It was Warner von Braun who provided a lot of the science to NASA for making such launches even a remote possibility. However, the club president went on to say after his story was over that Mr. Braun should have been in prison instead of working for the US government.

    Maybe so, but he was given a choice to go to prison or work for the US government. Which would you pick?

    Unfortunately, the club president was not very knowledgeable regarding the atrocities and horrors that the victorious allies of WWII visited upon Germany and her people both during and after.

    I never said a word during these exchanges but I felt awfully uncomfortable being in a room with such arrogantly, voluntarily uninformed people.

    But hey, this is America…

    • Replies: @MacNucc11
  211. Cyrano says:
    @Cowboy

    At the times like these, one might want to stop for a second and reflect on what was the real motive behind the Nazis’ creation of the concentration camps.

    Most people accept the idea that the purpose of the concentration camps was to turn the Jews into concentrates – in the form of ashes. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    You see, I think that the reason why Hitler established the concentration camps was because he realized that the Jews have scattered brains, so he wanted to build places for them where they can go to focus and concentrate on the important things in life.

    I also think that if the Jewish scientists who were behind the failed Israeli lunar probe landing were put in concentration camps in a timely fashion – none of this would have happened – they would have been able to utilize the peace and quiet of the concentration camps and better focus on the task at hand. This of course is just an attempt at dark humor.

  212. @Anonymous Jew

    Every single one of your sentences is a fallacy. It is about science and the law of physics. And here you have not one argument. You have faith and that is all. I understand that you do not work in an organisation like the CERN.

    No one is at the wheel.

    What a stupid comment:

    A wheel called war. And guess who is behind… someone not anonymous, is he?

  213. @Ron Unz

    Sir, is the edit function on comments not working for you, either?

    I don’t believe you wrote that last sentence.

  214. durd says:
    @Amon

    No expert here, but I would think 3000 lbs of rocket thrust that is slowing down a lunar lander in close proximity to the moon it would create a giant plume of dust, greater, yet different, than the same thing being done on earth. I can imagine the lander thrust hitting the moon and blowing the bejeezus out of the moon surface if it were not of solid rock. While most of the dust will leave at a trajectory similar to that of a meteor impact on the moon, some dust will interact with other dust much like the pins in the game of bowling and find their way back to the moon where they came from and land on the lunar lander.

    The pictures say this didn’t happen.

    I am aware that they say that the moons gravity is less- so I would think that the dust would travel farther and I am also aware that there is very little atmosphere- and this too, would further the distance dust would travel versus a no wind landing on earth.(wind carries dust)

    So my theory is the interactions of dust on dust would result in some dust landing on the lunar craft. I also think that if you were able to drive a car across the moon, the back window would stay cleaner longer than driving a car in similar conditions on earth. In my opinion this would be due to far less turbulence (if any) behind the car on the moon.

    If one were to strap an older styled 20lb propane tank to the exhaust bell on the lunar lander no matter whether the thing was on the earth or the moon and you opened the valve you would see dust fly and some dust would lodge on the lander. One can extrapolate and consider what you would see turning on 3000 lbs of rocket thrust.

    • Replies: @Olivier1973
    , @Amon
  215. @Joe Stalin

    and Australia, Spain and England (for various missions)……”Independent”, “straight from the lunar surface” issue dealt with in this article:

    https://www.aulis.com/record.htm in the section 2.2 concerning “independent tracking of radio signals”.

    The intelligence communities (of all nations) love to present “independent” reports presented by “independent” folks–think Operation Mockingbird.

  216. Mike P says:
    @j2

    Here is another illustration – maybe that will get the point across. It is taken from a report on radiation dosages aboard the first Indian moon satellite.

    The satellite in question sampled radiation across a wide range of distances from Earth (see bottom panel). The top two panels show particle flux rates and dosages at these different distances; the third panel characterizes the energy spectrum on a gray scale.

    I have highlighted, with colored vertical stripes, different segments of the trajectory. The thin blue line is close to Earth; notice that flux rates and dosages are low, while particle energies are high (black). In the inner (dark red) and outer (light red) van Allen belt, flux rates are high, but particle energies are low (light gray). In the lunar orbit (green), flux rates are intermediate, while particle energies are high again.

    Apollo 9 would have stayed in the blue zone only, whereas Apollo 11 would have sampled all zones, but spent most of its time in the green zone. Intensity here is 1-2 orders of magnitude higher than in Earth orbit. Particle energies in both zones are high, so shielding would have limited effectiveness in both areas.

    Thus, it simply is not possible for the dosages aboard Apollo 9 and Apollo 11 to be as close as they are – those aboard Apollo 11 should have been significantly higher. That doesn’t imply they would have been lethal.

    You have about the same GCR anywhere outside the Earth’s atmosphere, so it is about the same in low LEO or in the Moon or space voyage.

    This is false, and I have shown you a graph from Heinrich 1994 before to prove it. In a low Earth orbit of low inclination, only the hardest (and rarest) cosmic ray particles get through; the others are deflected to the poles by the magnetic field.

    For that reason one cannot prove that Apollo 11 did not go to the Moon in this way.

    Of course not – but I can prove that NASA is lying, one way or another. Either they went to the moon, then their dosages are false; or their dosages are right, then did not go to the moon.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @j2
  217. Polemos says:
    @Amon

    What would you like to read and converse about instead?

  218. @Buzz Mohawk

    I don’t know much about photography either here, or on the moon, but I sure know that this is funnier than Hell.:

    If only I could photograph as well as Armstrong’s tits!

    If only I had half of LD’s wits!

  219. @Sick of Orcs

    Another “Settled Science” ass hole. Yeah, evolution makes perfect sense to me. Maybe someday you ass hats will realize the greatest scientist died penniless in a New York apartment. It has never been about the science, it has always been about the money and the control.

    • Replies: @Sick of Orcs
  220. Cowboy says:

    I think a good analogy for Jews being so easily duped by the moon landing to be how Jews were so easily duped by Bernie Madoff.

    Bernie had been spinning usurous jewish lies for decades. His jewish customers got a minimum 10% return a year, no matter what. Anyone with a little financial knowledge could see that it was as fake as driving dune buggies on the moon. All the stupid goyim who realized what he was up to and tried to blow the whistle were either ruined or made to shut up. Ultimately, Jewish power is the power of the enforced lie.

    Why was it that goy investment advisors could smell fraud a mile away, but Jews couldn’t? Why did Bernie stash his customers funds at Jamie Diamonds J.P Morgan, the ultimate jew bank? It is all jews believing jew lies. They have no discernment. That is why.

    Goyim can more often recognize this sociopathic behavior, and jews are much less able, mostly because jews are in on the bezzle.

    • Replies: @apollonian
  221. eah says:
    @Sin City Milla

    the powers that be imposed taxes corresponding to current market valuations, which always go up

    Californians put a stop to that by passing Proposition 13 in 1978.

    • Replies: @Sin City Milla
  222. j2 says:
    @Mike P

    “This is false, and I have shown you a graph from Heinrich 1994 before to prove it. In a low Earth orbit of low inclination, only the hardest (and rarest) cosmic ray particles get through; the others are deflected to the poles by the magnetic field.”

    Ok, you are correct in this, Sabono’s thesis must have an error here. They are charged particles, nuclei. It depends on the orbit, in higher latitudes earth’s magnetic field does nothing to them, but in lower latitudes they go to the polar areas. So, if we make this correction that there should be lower GCR on a low LEO than in outer space and the Moon, then Apollo 11 should have got more radiation than Apollo 7. Maybe one can really prove it in a definitive way, but there is needed a good value for GCR on a low LEO from an accepted source. (It is not enough that a source is correct, it must be accepted or else it is hell of a job to convince anybody of it.)

    • Replies: @j2
  223. apollonian says: • Website
    @Anonymous Jew

    Right On Cue, Jew Steps In To Deliver Contempt, Lies, Lying

    I would only disagree w. “Cowboy” regarding that “genetic” propensity of thou to lying–everything else he said is verifiably true about thou Jews who are rightly hated by all peoples and races of all countries all throughout the world and history too, Jews kicked-out of practically every country on earth multiple times. For Jews are anti-human, satanic monsters, and Christ explicitly warns us about it in Gosp. JOHN 8:44.

    And all thy stupid lies and lying thou give us above have already been hrd numerous times, Jew. Thou are soooooooo amazingly ignorant thou don’t even understand thy Talmud CONFIRMS and exhorts Jews to war against humanity, beginning w. un-ending lies and lying. Thou lies in our faces, knowing we KNOW thou are lying–such is thy UN-ENDING contempt for gentiles, seconded and confirmed by Unz himself (see his contempt for gentiles expressed in his “Open Ltr to Alt-Right”).

    Christian New Test. is literally account of Christ’s dialectic w. thou lying Jews and thy CONSPIRACY to kill TRUTH (= Christ, Gosp. JOHN 14:6); thy Talmud BOASTS of having killed truth (= Christ), saying Christ deserved it, that now Christ sits in a vat of boiling excrement, etc. See Talmudical.BlogSpot.com, RevisionistReview.BlogSpot.com, and Come-and-hear.com for best expo.

    Thou tell us (my notes capped, bracketed),

    “Finally, if the moon landings and 911 ARE faked, then maybe these global overlords deserve to rule us. [WELL, THIS ACTUALLY SEEMS TO BE THE DEMONSTRATED FACT–WHAT HAPPENS IS JEWS, THE LEADING SATANISTS (SEE MY ABOVE EXPO IN OTHER COMMENTS), TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OVER-POPULATED GENTILES IN “DECLINE OF THE WEST,” MAKING USE OF STUPID GENTILES TO RULING AND DOMINATING A DECLINING, DEGENERATE CULTURE–AS WE SEE IN REALITY, BEFORE OUR VERY EYES.]

    “Anyone that can pull that off probably does know what’s best for me, open borders and all.” [NO, AND PROOF IS SATANISTS AND JEWS HAVE MADE AGENDA-21 AND -2030 GENOCIDE LITERAL GOV. POLICY, SUCKER–BUT THOU ARE SOOO CONTEMPTUOUS OF HUMANITY THOU DELIBERATELY IGNORES WHAT THOU UNDOUBTEDLY KNEW.]

    Of course, thou also, sooo conveniently, leave-out and ignore the conspiracy of central-banking (see Mises.org; use their site search-engine for particular terms), literally legalized counterfeiting by which criminal enterprise thou Satanist monsters own everyone and everything. The stupid, over-populated people can’t resist the lies and false-hoods such central-banking is built upon, seeking INFINITE currency against real (commodity-based) MONEY which protects them fm such gov.-based fraud.

    Jews thus are actually a parasite disease meant for the de-population of over-populated, stupid gentiles, Jews actually showing how to make money off of stupidity of gentiles, and thou work by means of sublimely organized conspiracy (see “Protocols of Learned Elders of Zion”) which, naturally, thou denies, denying it’s even possible–typical Jew lies and lying, as usual, as always–why our precious (real) religion of Christianity features anti-Semitism, that anti-Semitism almost over-shadowing love of truth and honesty itself.

  224. @Cowboy

    Fo Sho – For those of you who were ignorant of such things, have a peek at the bullshit Apollo computer.
    https://www.aulis.com/pascal.htm

    • Replies: @Cowboy
  225. iffen says:
    @jeff stryker

    Linh has been both of them, though perhaps for a fleeting moment he was slated to be the next “Joy Luck Club” Asian hot new writer of the literati.

    You must know more about LD than I. I only know him from his articles at UR. IMO he has the eye and ear of an exceptional artist devoid of condescension toward the common folk. (At least I thought so.)

    That must make his fall from brief grace and a promising career very steep indeed.

    I wonder if “fuck dem Jews” came before “a Jew fucked my career.”

    is comparably better off overseas.

    I’ve told you before that I don’t castigate you for leaving.

    It was what we were taught.

    Save yourself; fuck the community.

    • Replies: @jeff stryker
  226. @Buzz Mohawk

    Yeah, and if my grandma had balls she’d be my grandpa. Keep on believi’n in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and the second coming.

  227. @durd

    I am aware that they say that the moons gravity is less-

    That is right. It did not hinder “bereshit” to hit the lunar soil at 130 m/sec. Go figure the result of that 1/6 lower gravity…

  228. j2 says:
    @Mike P

    “This is false, and I have shown you a graph from Heinrich 1994 before to prove it. In a low Earth orbit of low inclination, only the hardest (and rarest) cosmic ray particles get through; the others are deflected to the poles by the magnetic field.”

    You have to take into account that it is on the time of solar maximum. During a solar maximum therte is the strongest solar wind and this solar wind pushes cosmic ray particles away, so it is the solar wind that mostly protects us and as the sun is so far from us, this protection is about the same in the Moon as in the Earth orbit. The additional protection that we get from the Earth’s magnetic field may be a rather small fraction (as these particles are so energetic) that maybe one does not get any good contradiction.

    One can try: ignore or underestimate the VABs contribution. Does the difference in GCR prove that Apollo II was not in a similar orbit as Apollo 7. There is a different duration, but if GCR differs much, it might show. I think it will not, but who knows.

  229. j2 says:
    @j2

    Mike P,

    Just to make it clearer what I mean. Take the announced dosage of Apollo 7 and interpret what the dosage is made of. It is a low LEO, so only little trapped protons. The rest must be GCR. This means that GCR cannot be zero as the total dosage was not zero. We have to set some value to GCR on low LEO and that very probably will not much differ from GCR on the Moon. At least that is what Sabino’s figures indicate. Marki must be wrong in assuming that GCR is zero on LEO, because the announced dosage of Apollo 7 was not zero.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  230. apollonian says: • Website
    @Joe Stalin

    2nd Hand Joey Jo

    Joey-Jo jo, buddy, “Apollo 16”?–thou needs to prove Apollo 11 manned moon-landing, sucker. And shit-for-brains, thou knows NOTHING about what was

    “…picked up straight from the lunar surface by the Gemans.”

    ONLY thing thou knows is what someone said about it, right?–stupid moron.

    Thou ought to call thyself “2nd hand Joey jo-jo”–gets all his info 2nd hand, eh? Ho ho ho ho ho. Also, I understand Prozac is poison in any dosage size, fool–thou ought to cut that crap entirely out if thou are doing it, which I wouldn’t be surprised thou are, dumbass.

  231. iffen says:
    @Ron Unz

    and I’m busy with other things,

    Keep on making those Benjamins and turning them into projects like the UR. Some of us appreciate it.

  232. @Ron Unz

    Mr. Unz,

    Well I’ve already written several thousand words of comments on this thread and the previous Moon Hoax article explaining in considerable detail why I think the Moon Hoax theory is so absolutely, totally ridiculous.

    What if instead of writing words, you would for once listen to people from the NASA who are admitting there was no man on the moon until today, that is no man beyond LEO:

    And what about my challenge? Don’t you want to earn easy money? Like Bart to Neil, you could tell me to send the money to a charity. If you win the bet of course.

    And by the way:

    https://www.space.com/39251-on-this-day-in-space.html

    • Replies: @Mike P
    , @Peredur
  233. apollonian says: • Website
    @Cowboy

    Consider Most Seriously The SUBJECTIVIST “Reality”–What It Entails, Implies, Really Means

    “Cowboy” nailed it: Jews LOVE lies, liars, and lying–they lie to gentiles and they lie to one another, and they lie even to themselves(!)–this is why/how it’s sooooo necessary to Jews and Jewwy-friendlies regarding “beeeleeeeeeeeeevin’”–this idiot “beeeleeeeeeeeeevin’” is absolutely essential to both Jews and “Judeo-Christians” (JCs–see Whtt.org and TruthTellers.org for expo on JCs).

    Jews, Jewwies, and JCs don’t understand an OBJECTIVE reality wherein reality itself is the criterion/standard for truth or false. Hence in the typical Jew subjective reality it’s all matter of “beeeleeeevin’,” “truth” then being merely something agreed upon according to some mysterious “group-think,” “midrash,” and “Oral Law Tradition”–“what’s good for Jews,” hence what’s good and expedient for the rabbis and higher-ups–Jews perfectly willing to sacrifice the lower-down Jews–as we see fm the Bolshevik history.

    Ron Unz, Jew, CONFIRMS this Jew subjectivist methodology–if the higher-ups, establishment says so, then it’s true, ipso-facto. Unz heeds to “experts,” “midrash,” and rabbis, in true, typical Jew, Jewwy fashion. Unz couldn’t care less about objective reality, the reason based thereupon, science, logic, or common-sense–it’s what the “experts” (or rabbis) say, PERIOD, suckers, hoho ho ho ho hoo.

    Note we’ve NEVER in all history had such a Jew-dominated (hence satanistic) society/”culture” as we have now, building since the Reformation, and Jews like Unz are quite happy and satisfied w. it, Unz perfectly willing to going-along. “Conspiracy-theory”?–it’s ridiculous, say the Jews like Unz, after all this is the very pinnacle of all/any civilization according to Jews like Unz, ho ho ho ho ho.

  234. @Jonathan Revusky

    If you want to learn about the world, you should not avoid material that will challenge your preconceived ideas; you should even seek it out.

    I second that!

    I’ve also learned that we’re a race of wretches.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @Iris
  235. g says:

    Fabulous bro!
    Busybody utopianism is our bane irregardless the doctrine or it is the underlying doctrine. The shining city on the hill still exudes but at what point is the illusion exposed? Implosion I suppose. The mythos are slowly fading as reality and like liberal protestantism of the 20th century these myths just become a nice facade of some cultural remnant and the American enterprise dies off like so many liberal protestant denominations. Only the elderly still believe the myths. The American religion is an empty church spare the few elderly… like a Schrader movie where the minister is conflicted.

  236. @Tusk

    Of course we’ll land on the Sun. We’ll just go at night.

    • LOL: Mike P, Iris
  237. Rurik says:
    @jacques sheete

    I’ve also learned that we’re a race of wretches.

    species Jacques

    species of wretches.

    But I knew what you meant.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  238. Mike P says:
    @j2

    At least that is what Sabino’s figures indicate. Marki must be wrong in assuming that GCR is zero on LEO, because the announced dosage of Apollo 7 was not zero.

    Yes, GCR is not zero – and Marki knows it, since he told me so unprompted. He was simply using the output of the SPENVIS tool, which returned zero for the LEO dosage, which presumably means that relative to the other points on the trajectory it is negligible.

    Take the announced dosage of Apollo 7 and interpret what the dosage is made of …

    Yes, strictly speaking, in order to calculate the exact ratio of the dosages for lunar and LEO missions, we would have to consider the exact shielding configuration and iterate through all particle types and their energy spectra, at each position on the trajectory; and this is what the SPENVIS tool can in principle be used for. But as long as we are simply trying to decide if the dosages are of similar or dissimilar magnitude, we don’t really have to; and since we don’t know the details about the shielding anyway, we can’t actually do it. This is why Marki just pulled some arbitrary numbers for the shielding out of thin air, as he also acknowledges; and as a semi-quantitative approximation, it works well enough. The major uncertainty is how much of the relatively soft van Allen radiation got through, but even without it, the lunar mission dosage will still be substantially higher.

    • Replies: @j2
  239. @iffen

    His writing speaks for itself, and very well too.

  240. Mike P says:
    @Olivier1973

    Good video. Also note that the LEM could be pressurised, so that the astronauts could take off their helmets. Some tough aluminium wrap!

  241. @Rurik

    But I knew what you meant.

    Ah wuz takin a lil poetik licinse, sir! And I knew guys like yoo’d know it! 😉

  242. Artifacts found on NASA’s moon photos:

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

    2) https://www.aulis.com/scientific_analysis.htm

    Wonder if they called it ‘Photoshopping’ back then…

    • Replies: @Moon Landing Skeptic
  243. Peredur says:
    @Olivier1973

    This would be a good video if it weren’t for the part where he talks about the LEM not being able to withstand temperatures in the thermosphere. It seems clear that the LEM was inside of the launch vehicle, so it wouldn’t have been at any greater risk from the temperatures in the thermosphere than the astronauts themselves. The thermosphere is not very dense, so I would not expect heat to transfer to launch vehicle occupants very quickly. The International Space Station (ISS), which orbits at 400 km, is mostly made of aluminum. The thermosphere extends well above 400 km, so why aren’t the high thermospheric temperatures a problem? It is mainly because the air is so thin up there that hardly any heat gets into the spacecraft. Some heat must reach the interior of the ISS from the surrounding thermosphere, but it sounds like rays from the Sun create a bigger heat problem for the ISS than the actual ambient temperature of the thermosphere. Perhaps most of the heat is lost through black-body radiation.

    • Agree: Mike P
    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  244. You made my day much better mr Dinh, thank you 👍😊

  245. A gender fluid American astronaut will place a laminated printout of his virtual spouse on the surface of the sun. “USA! USA!” many of us will chant.

    This was easily the most hilarious thing I have read in a long while. Thank you for the laugh.

    If progress is good, then accelerated progress is even better, for it will get us to the Messianic Age faster. […] Tradition is an albatross, so unmoor yourself and worship speed.

    Sadly, the religion of progress is well on its way to undoing the traditional cultures of Latin America and Spain. For all their baying and moaning against the U. S. and “yankee imperialists”, most Latin Americans and Spaniards are utterly in the thrall of American junk culture and ideologies. The toadying to American elite interests—normalization of drug abuse, ahem, I mean to say “recreational” drug use, a concept considered shameful and rare in most of the Hispanophone world until fairly recently; gynocentric supremacy, extolling of sexual deviancy, fomenting ethnic/national self-hate, open borders, etc.—on display in media organs like El País, El Clarín, La Tercera, and so on is positively revolting. But millions of Hispanics aspire to be American. To be one is to “make it”; to reach the apex of sophistication and economic success. And all it costs to achieve that is to eviscerate one’s nation and allow one’s children to become “gender non-confirming” drug addict buggerers!

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  246. @Rev. Spooner

    It’s a common saying that we only use 10% of our brains but it might be more accurate to say that 90% of our brains are used for thinking about and believing in shit that just isn’t true.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  247. onebornfree says: • Website

    “Moon Lander Fabrication Analysis”:

    This is a serious analysis, but I still cannot stop myself laughing at the utter ridiculousness of the moon lander we all were, and still are , told is the “real deal”.. Enjoy!

    Regards,onebornfree

  248. Apparently I didn’t state it obviously enough: Linh Dinh wrote that the Apollo photos taken on the lunar surface are too perfect. My point is that many of them are not perfect at all. The example I posted shows this, but there are many more, some even worse.

    You will find more from the longer moon walks, when far more pictures were taken, and usually taken more quickly. Here is another example, this time from Apoll0 17:

    As for the best images, they are sharp because there is no air on the Moon. The sunlight does not pass through any atmosphere on its way to the subject; nor does it when it bounces from the subject to the camera.

    The unreal sharpness of those pictures is actually evidence that they were taken in a vacuum!

    With the correct exposure time and f-stop, a Hasselblad camera, 70mm film, and brightly lit subjects in a vacuum, you have the recipe for the sharpest vacation shots anyone could ever take.

    We put the Hubble Telescope in orbit so it doesn’t have to look through air. Pictures taken on the Moon and in space are much clearer than ones taken on the Earth.

    Even with all that said, plenty of the Apollo surface photographs are neither exceptionally good or bad.

    Linh Dinh’s judgment in this matter is a perfect example of confirmation bias.

  249. @Johnny Walker Read

    Tesla didn’t die broke and alone, that’s a myth. Dial back your Spergometer, I made no claims about anything you mentioned.

  250. Paul C. says:
    @Ron Unz

    It turns out, Ron does agree NASA is a bunch of liars.

    In 2019, when NASA scientists and astronauts state publicly that we can’t go beyond lower earth orbit (LEO), we don’t have the technology to safely transport humans beyond the Van Allen Belts, that we lost the video footage and telemetry data evidence of every moon mission and that we lost the actual technology needed to go to the moon, Ron believes they’re lying.

    That’s the most agreement we’ll get from someone who’s unwilling to research the matter.

    Remember, going to the moon is so easy, NASA likes to bring a dune buggy. Who says Freemasons don’t have a sense of humor. 🙂 At $19B a year, the joke’s on us.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  251. Anonymous [AKA "Anuna"] says:

    ”In old Europe, the religion of progress is challenged and counterbalanced by many reminders of its magnificent past, and I’m not even talking about, say, Brunelleschi’s Dome and Giotto’s Tower in Florence, but the gravitas of your centuries-old village church”

    The European religion of progress is definitely not progress.

    ”Deeply rooted complex of superiority is, once again, clearly in control of the behavioral patterns of the Europeans. Response of Spain is overall bombastic, arrogant and dismissive.

    Vulgarity and arrogance of Spanish regime should not be seen as something new, or unexpected”

    ”Denouncing colonialism and crimes against humanity committed by the West; its kings, armies, religions, even common citizens, is a dangerous undertaking, often ‘punishable’ by death.”

    ”Yet crimes have been so monstrous, that regularly, great and brave people keep standing up and pointing fingers at Europe, the United States, and at the elites of the European stock, in South America and elsewhere.”

    Mexico to Spain And Vatican: Apologize for Your Crimes!

    https://ahtribune.com/world/americas/3040-mexico-spain-vatican.html

  252. Erebus says:
    @Rurik

    I can’t think of even one negative consequence of such a blow.

    For America the nation, you’re probably right in the sense that a new chastened nation would eventually rise to replace the current abomination, but for at least a generation or two the people living there would be in a world of hurt as all the systems that keep a modern society running cave in one after the other.
    CONUS won’t be a happy place in 2030, but a new America could certainly be climbing back into the saddle by, say 2070. Of course, the world will be a very different place by then, and the blind luck that underpinned America’s preeminence in the 20th C won’t necessarily be available a 2nd time.

  253. Erebus says:
    @Paul C.

    In 2019, when NASA scientists and astronauts state publicly… that we lost the video footage and telemetry data evidence of every moon mission and that we lost the actual technology needed to go to the moon, Ron believes they’re lying.

    The inescapable fact is that they’re either lying now, or that they were lying then. So, it’s all about choosing which set of lies one wishes to believe.

    As NASA’s current statements match what both the Chinese and Russians say about going to the moon, I’m inclined to think that NASA has finally come to Jesus.

    I guess that those who would believe they’re lying now are relying on NASA’s insatiable appetite for more money as the motive. Of course, that motive worked back then as well. Maybe it worked even better.

  254. Ron Unz says:

    Well, since I’m running a big batch job and this whole silly debate is still going strong, I might as well reemphasize the fact that some “conspiracies” seem substantiated while others aren’t and there’s a notable difference between aspects of the two.

    Take for example, the JFK Assassination. Killing a president in association with elements of the CIA and organized crime is a pretty big deal, and talking about it is a bit “dangerous.” Indeed, quite a lot of people involved in the operation or later investigations ended up dead under extremely suspicious circumstances. Also, I doubt whether the number of people who had direct personal knowledge of the events numbered more than a few dozen.

    Nonetheless, a vast amount of evidence and testimony, including statements sworn under oath, came out over the next couple of decades, and the case for a conspiracy seems overwhelmingly strong as I discussed in my articles last year:

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

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-jfk-assassination-part-ii-who-did-it/

    Why did I spend decades assuming there was no conspiracy? Well, because almost none of the vast amount of evidence was ever seriously reported by the MSM, so I didn’t even know it existed. But once I began looking into the matter, I quickly discovered the huge accumulation of evidence and past testimony, and it easily persuaded me.

    But the Moon Hoax nonsense is totally different. The repeated claim is that anyone with “common sense” can see that the 1969 Moon Landing was “scientifically impossible.” That surely implies that many, many thousands of actual scientists must be able to see that as well, including most of the NASA employees at the time.

    Yet not a single one of them has ever come forward, and no scientist ever published a book or an article making that claim.

    I think the CIA and the mafia are much more dangerous organizations than the engineers at NASA, and accusing the former of having assassinated JFK seems to involve more far deadly risks than claiming the latter orchestrating a hoax. Yet large numbers of alleged participants have gone public about the former and absolutely no one about the latter, even after the FoxTV network actually aired a television show promoting the Moon Hoax theory back in 2001.

    All I see is a bunch of (often anonymous) non-scientists endlessly saying the Moon landing was “scientifically impossible” and also pointing to a bunch of Apollo photos that mean nothing to me. Plus there are some cryptic remarks by Stanley Kubrick and a few other people up on YouTube.

    I’d say the ratio of evidence for the JFK conspiracy to that of the Moon Hoax is about 100-to-1, or actually more like 100-to-zero.

    My own “conspiracy theory” is that the whole Moon Hoax nonsense may have been heavily promoted by the Cass Sunstein-types, being aimed at luring gullible “conspiracy people” into making themselves look totally ridiculous. Unfortunately, based on the reaction to these articles, they seem to have largely succeeded.

    On the positive side, all Moon Hoax nonsense will henceforth be restricted to these dedicated Moon Hoax threads, and won’t be allowed to clutter up other discussions, as it sometimes did in the past.

  255. @iffen

    IFFEN

    I came from a bedroom community of white-collar fathers-lawyers, scientists like my father, doctors, businessmen-who themselves had merely moved there because Detroit by then was a terrible place to raise kids and they were willing to commute.

    It was not really a community. Families were always moving. To Chicago, out West, down South, to DC. A bunch of people from Texas moved into the community who were transferred up from Dallas.

    No idea what happened to the kids I grew up with. White-collar professionals move 4 or 5 times during their kids childhood and usually retire somewhere warm.

    As the author of the Budapest article commented, from the very beginning there was a rootlessness in expats lives. Dad moved around for work, parents divorced, siblings long gone to who knows where.

    Additionally, you have to understand what post-industrial rustbelt cities in Michigan are like. I had a college roommate who was a Polish-American from Flint. He got a Polish Catholic girl pregnant in his sophomore year who refused to get an abortion and he found himself stuck in Flint. Years later, from Dubai, I called him after we got in touch on FACEBOOK. His former tidy Polish neighborhood was one great big black crackhouse. He could not get out.

    White flight in the US is all about self-preservation. When the ship goes down, rats swim in all directions as fast as they can to keep the sinking ship’s currents from pulling them down with it.

    Most white middle-class Americans are internal migrants anyhow. My brother moved to California when he was 18 after getting a scholarship to UCLA. He became an urban planner and for many years praised Orange County and California as the future. Then Southern California seemingly worsened. He moved once more back East, because he had kids by then. Then, because his Japanese wife really detested the East Coast, they moved to Hawaii.

    • Replies: @iffen
  256. RobinG says:
    @NoseytheDuke

    I think he has interesting viewpoints and cuts to the chase.

    LOL.

  257. @Ron Unz

    Thank you.

    The Moon Hoax believers here are strong evidence of Moon Hoaxism as Religion.

    • Agree: Ron Unz, dfordoom, turtle
  258. RobinG says:
    @Ron Unz

    Moon Hoax nonsense will henceforth be restricted

    thanks. Back in the ’70s, I used a solid old relic, a Leica rangefinder (purchased by a Sergeant in Berlin). I took photos from the back of army jeeps, from buses, planes, boats, while on horseback, and of course mostly just standing still. Focus was never a problem. IDK what the big deal is about the Apollo pics, haven’t looked, and I’m not about to. (and I never knew what the thrall was about Revusky.)

    • Replies: @Cowboy
  259. Dube says:

    All progressive visions are derived from Jewish messianism.

    I wish Linh Dinh had explained that remark before moving on. I’ll have to try for my own sake, even if talking only with myself. It brings into contrast the Jewish Moshiach and the Christian Messiah or Christ. If I understand it, the former does not come until the world is made perfect, while the latter returns to a sinful world. Thus the former does require an indefatigable passion for progress. I’m reminded of the video posted elsewhere on this site of a young Netanyahu being directed by the rebbe Schneerson to use the remaining hours of the afternoon toward bringing about the arrival of Moshiach.

    There, I can post that much, in this roaring arena of critical thinking exercises about the moon landing, and good for that. I can muse further that Moshiach, so far as I know, is to appear among us on earth without necessarily traveling through the stars, whereas the Christ, in contrast, according to Acts I:11, definitely makes an earth landing.

    Further implications, perhaps another time.

  260. Erebus says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    The Moon Hoax believers here are strong evidence of Moon Hoaxism as Religion.

    No. Not if the word “evidence” and “religion” still mean something similar to what the dictionary says they do.

    Moon Hoaxism is to Moon Beliefism as Atheism is to Catholicism (or whatever). I’ve heard it said that Atheism is a religion of its own, but that’s a logical nonsense. A religion without beliefs is an impossible construct. The words may work grammatically, but they convey no information.

    You guys just don’t get it that physical claims need physical proof. Without that, they are empty claims.
    There is logical leap between “We may have gone to the moon” and “We went to the moon”, and they require radically different levels of proof to be judged “True”. The very best of the evidence presented here by Believers supports the first statement (at least emotionally), but falls far short of supporting the 2nd. The Hoaxers, otoh have presented, or pointed to evidence that all but adequately supports a negation of the 2nd.

    A sound explication, by a PhD rocket scientist, of why the F1 cannot produce the power it had to have produced to lift Apollo’s moon missions is available. No positing of “American Ingenuity & Daring-Do” can overcome that troublesome bit of physics. Believers have to show how that was overcome. They haven’t because they can’t. Just as they can’t with most of the less troublesome problems Hoaxers bring to the argument.

    Frankly, I’m gob-smacked that someone trained in Theoretical Physics wouldn’t know the difference. Bizarre. Remind me not to go to Harvard in my next life.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @Cowboy
  261. j2 says:
    @Mike P

    Mike P,

    I looked at the video you linked. It does not show either way.

    1. Assuming that Apollo 11 is in 100,000 km from the earth in the video:
    – the phrase “Talk” is from Houston. An analysist is looking at communications from Apollo and notices that there is coming talk communication. It is encoded for the transmission and must be decoded, which at the equipment of that time was not instantaneous. Thus, he says, we received talk. Then it is decoded and played, so we hear Armstrong’s voice.
    – They talk about playback and synchronizing the replies. If they were at 100,000 km from the earth, the signal took 300 ms to travel, but the coding and decoding delays were very different for voice and for high quality video. Thus, video would be shown as playback and voice would have to be synchronized with video later.
    – The image of the earth seems authentic to me, not as anything photographed from 2000 km LEO. That is, the earth radius is 6000 km, from 2000 km you get a very small view and if you cut it with a window, it must be a small window and the image would not show a continent and sea, like it does. So, I do not think they did any window shielding trick.
    – They cover windows to stop sunlight from reflecting from the window in the back. That is natural, they would have to do so.
    – Thus, this all fits to being at 100,000 km from the earth.

    2. Assuming they were on a low LEO and wanted to create fabricated evidence.
    – Then the signal transmission delay, 300 ms, was in reality only 7 ms. That you cannot hear, but the coding/decoding delay is the same and they still would have to play the video in a playback mode and synchronize the video and voice.
    – The phrase “Talk”could be a Houston signal analysist saying we got voiced communication, like in the first case, but here it could also be from some other communication, as suggested by the video.
    – They would not show the real image of the earth, but use a picture of the earth sent earlier by one of the NASA unmanned spaceships, which went to the Moon, or close enough.
    – If they were on LEO and Armstrong says they are 100,000 km away, then this video was made either for faking purposes, which means they intended to show it, or for fun, but as the earth looks so small, we can conclude they made some effort. Thus, it was made for faking purposes.
    – So, in principle this is also possible. They could have faked it and made this video for faking purposes. The question is why did they not show this video.

    There is nothing that shows which of the cases, 1. or 2. is the true case. Anyway, we can conclude that they are in the space. There is no gravitation in the spaceship. Especially, they are not in some film studio during the times of the flight.

    So, the video solves nothing.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
    , @Mike P
  262. @Peredur

    It is mainly because the air is so thin up there that hardly any heat gets into the spacecraft.

    We constantly hear this argument implying that an object in a vacuum of space will not be heated up in the sun’s rays. There is such a thing as direct radiation. Why is it cooler in the shade than in the open when there is the same density and pressure of air in both cases to conduct the heat? One could argue that the spaceship in a vacuum would be hotter than in the atmosphere because there are no air molecules to absorb the sun’s radiation. In fact the surface of the earth has cool temperatures because the air of the atmosphere above has absorbed most of the solar radiation, which at the top of the atmosphere is so energetic that it dissociates molecules and atoms into radicals and electrons. Even accepting that space is cold because there is nothing there to heat up in a vacuum, once you place something there and expose it to direct solar radiation it will heat up rapidly and tremendously.

    Furthermore, it is a well known fact that the melting (or rather the sublimation/evaporation) point/temperature of metals decreases with decreasing pressure and this is made use of in vacuum melting furnaces. So how do they melt metals in a vacuum furnace if the absence of air implies that it should be “cold”? Am I the only one here, but I don’t think the material science questions pertaining to space travel have been adequately answered? Am I supposed to buy what those selling vacuum furnaces are telling me or what NASA says?

    I am not denying that much of what NASA is involved in is real genuine science, but still they don’t answer all the questions properly, especially with answers such as the one that objects do not heat up in a vacuum, even in the presence of a heat source such as the Sun, because there is no air.

  263. j2 says:
    @Ron Unz

    “All I see is a bunch of (often anonymous) non-scientists endlessly saying the Moon landing was “scientifically impossible” and also pointing to a bunch of Apollo photos that mean nothing to mean. Plus there are some cryptic remarks by Stanley Kubrick and a few other people up on YouTube.”

    About the photos that mean nothing. I just read the links of comment 248. I suggest you read them. The authors of the second one seem quite qualified.

  264. Cowboy says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    Quite an interesting article. Turtle and I had a long debate on this in the prior mooner thread, Turtle linked to this series of clips where they try to make it run. I watched the first couple, it was 7 episodes long. Turtle claims that the entire computer was hardened with parafin or something, but I don’t buy it.

  265. Cowboy says:
    @j2

    J2, I defer to you and Mike P as being the Van Allen belt/Radiation specialists on this thread, can either of you provide input on the following question?

    Back in the early 80’s I spent a few weeks on TDY working on a Honeywell GCOS mainframe in the Federal Building in San Francisco. One day some guy came marching through the office in a panic announcing “save your work, the aircraft carrier Nimitz (IIRC) is entering San Francisco Bay”. When asked, he explained that several months back the Honeywell Math Processing Board somehow got messed up by the Nimitz radar, and they had computer center disaster where they had to roll back all their work for several days due to inaccurate math processor. It happened more than once.

    So my question to you and Mike P is even if the Van Allen Belt didn’t fry the astronauts, have either of you evaluated the likelihood that some of the electronics, sensors or other components could have been fried by the Van Allen Belt or other radiation/em waves?

    • Replies: @Mike P
    , @j2
    , @James Forrestal
  266. Cowboy says:
    @RobinG

    “Back in the ’70s, I used a solid old relic, a Leica rangefinder (purchased by a Sergeant in Berlin).I took photos from the back of army jeeps, from buses, planes, boats, while on horseback, and of course mostly just standing still. Focus was never a problem. “

    Were you at a gallop using both hands to focus, or merely at a trot? Of course you used your light meter too. Heck, you should have been a Hussar.

  267. TT says:
    @durd

    Who cares if its a hoax or using NASA rocket(compliment of US tax payer) to crash a trash up there, Israel has gone on to claim the prestige title, the only 4th nation capable to land on lunar.

  268. TT says:
    @Ron Unz

    If someone insisted to believe this alu wrapped lunar lander:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvw&v=cOdzhQS_MMw#

    was capable of surviving flying two ways 350,000miles in space at tens thousands miles per hour speed, sustained a 10,000lbs rocket engine thrust underneath, capable of throttle lunar landing, capable to squeeze in a heavy rover, sustained 2 astronauts needs in harsh lunar for 3days, before it propelled itself up 63miles to conduct precise space docking rendezvous maneuver(holding airtight to command module) orbiting at 20,000miles/hr speed.

    He himself is the greatest hoax.

    But Ron would say what’s the matter if it look fake, NASA could have faked the lunar lander out of convenient just like the faked photos, still it didn’t change the fact that we land on moon.

    Otherwise, he said, hundreds of thousands scientists would have pointed out in open & writing books on how the alu wrapper lander won’t survive even a afternoon of kids play. So we should believe what other experts said, not on any common sense.

    That’s how a physicist self convinced himself, and derided others as crack pots for pointing out the emperor is naked. That’s his worth of credibility.

  269. @Erebus

    Frankly, I’m gob-smacked that someone trained in Theoretical Physics wouldn’t know the difference.

    How so?
    They are theoreticians, corrupt morons, bought to peddle what is expected from them, and they arrive at the conclusion expected from them. Usually, these theoreticians have no clue whatsoever what nonsense they postulate, for example virtual photons or photons, but its regarded like a religious dogma that must be maintained at all costs. All it requires that the moon is made of cheese is belief. That’s how they operate, it is in fact criminal.

    • Agree: apollonian
    • Replies: @Erebus
  270. Cowboy says:
    @Erebus

    “Frankly, I’m gob-smacked that someone trained in Theoretical Physics wouldn’t know the difference. Bizarre. Remind me not to go to Harvard in my next life.”

    Well said, Erebus.

    I was considering making this reply to Ron Unz, but after having several of my comments delinked from his, I’ll just make it here, since it kinda fits.

    I have made a strong case for heavy and controlling Masonic involvement in this moon hoax. Ron Unz has dismissed any mention of freemasons as moonbattery, on this and other unrelated threads. He has even blocked comments from me and added comments to my comments telling my to lay off masonic “conspiracy theories”.

    Ron graduated from Harvard, which is famous not only for allowing rich Jews to buy up all the faculty and student positions, but also for its secret societies and fraternities.

    Secret Societies at Harvard

    Final clubs at Harvard include The Porcellian Club (1791), originally called The Argonauts; The Delphic Club (1900); The Fly Club, (1836), a successor of Alpha Delta Phi; The Phoenix – S K Club (1897); The Owl Club, originally called Phi Delta Psi, (1896); and The Fox Club (1898).

    Co-ed clubs include The Spee Club, The Aleph (formerly Alpha Epsilon Pi) (2001), and The K.S (formerly Kappa Sigma) (1905).

    There are also five female clubs: The Bee Club (1991), The Isis Club (2000), The Sablière Society (2002), The Pleiades Society (2002), and La Vie Club (2008).

    Harvard also has three fraternities, Sigma Chi (1992), Sigma Alpha Epsilon (1893), and Delta Kappa Epsilon (currently a colony), and four sororities: Delta Gamma (1994), Kappa Kappa Gamma (2003), Kappa Alpha Theta (1993), and Alpha Phi (2013). These organizations are semi-secret in nature, have secret initiation processes and meetings but a more transparent process for gaining membership. All four sororities and the Sigma Chi fraternity also have rules against admitting non-members to many parts of their buildings.

    Another all-male social group is The Oak Club (2005), a successor of Delta Upsilon (1890) and later The D.U. “Duck” Club (1940), which holds events but does not own property in Harvard Square. There are also several final clubs and fraternities which are now defunct, including Pi Eta Speakers, The D.U. “Duck” Club, Delta Upsilon, Pi Kappa Alpha, and The Iroquois.

    Approximately 10% of men and 5% of women are in final clubs. Approximately 7% of men and 15% of women are in Greek letter organizations. Additionally, an unknown number of students are in other secretive on-campus groups.

    Other secretive social groups include the Hasty Pudding Club, Harvard Lampoon, Harvard Advocate, the Signet Society, and The Seneca.

    Finally, Harvard Lodge is a university Masonic lodge, founded in 1922 by Harvard Law School Dean/Professor Roscoe Pound, members of the Harvard Square & Compass Club, and members of the Harvard Masonic Club (which included Theodore Roosevelt). It is the oldest academic lodge in North America, its membership is restricted to males with a Harvard affiliation, and it operates in the building of Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, overlooking Boston Common.

    So by my calculations for men at Harvard:
    10% in final club
    + 7% in Fraternities
    + 3% in Harvard Lodge (for simplicity)
    ——-
    = 20% chance Ron Unz is a member of a secret or semi-secret society from Harvard alone.

    But Ron Unz is a Jew whose first language is Yiddish, winner of the masonic “Science Talent Search” prize. Evidently he liked his stay at Harvard because he got 2 separate Bachelors degrees there. Clearly, he could have gotten out sooner with one degree if he was unhappy. Then he went onto Stanford, another highly questionable masonic organization seeped with the esoteric beginnings.

    It is when you add this history to his complete and total unwillingness to even consider Masonic influences in any of modern history that it becomes clear that other factors are at work.

    Ron totally refuses to discuss the Craft, and actively denigrates any who would. In the case of the “moon landing” Ron tries to pretend that their pervasive presence across the highest levels of the entire program is beyond consideration. Freemasons have the option of publicly admitting their membership, like Grissom or Aldrin, or keeping it secret.

    Clearly, in this case, Ron cannot speak the truth and this is why he is shutting down these threads. Whether this censorship is being performed willingly or due to coercion I cannot say.

    • Replies: @Peter Grafström
  271. iffen says:
    @jeff stryker

    It was not really a community.

    We are social animals and “need” a community (just like we “need” a religion). The gradient mixture of individualism vs. community has been shifting in the direction of individualism for a long time. This is not a problem for most people. Indeed, it has allowed the maximum flourishing of the individual with all the concomitant benefits for all of society. After all, one can just “adopt” a sports team or political ideology, etc. However, for the less capable, that is, those without the necessary traits and skills to adjust to our current social and economic environment, life is not good. What, if anything, should be done about this is the question.

    • Replies: @jeff stryker
  272. Mike P says:
    @Cowboy

    That question is above my pay grade.

  273. Erebus says:
    @Commentator Mike

    We constantly hear this argument implying that an object in a vacuum of space will not be heated up in the sun’s rays. There is such a thing as direct radiation.

    You’re absolutely right. The argument is total bollocks.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  274. @Rurik

    Especially coming from one of us “dumb goyim,” that’s a pretty awesome comment. I agree with all.

    I’m not holding my breath either.

  275. @Buzz Mohawk

    The Moon Hoax believers here are strong evidence of Moon Hoaxism as Religion.

    And that there is a G-wd of vengeance.

    Israeli Lander Failure Marks 1st Moon Crash in 48 Years

    [Yet}In 1966, the USSR became the first country to achieve a soft landing on the moon with Luna 9

    So much for high IQs and endless munny. Praise de Lawdy!!!

    PS: I hope this isn’t too mucked up. I still cannot edit or preview my comments here.

    • Replies: @Daniel Rich
    , @Cowboy
  276. >Neil Armstrong was not as much the first man on the moon, but the first tripod

    Sigh. Linh Dinh provides definite proof that you can be an entertaining writer while also a moron. With all the light on the moon, the shutter speed must have been set very high. You can’t get movement blur under such conditions even if you tried.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Cowboy
  277. @Erebus

    There is such a thing as direct radiation.

    Of course.

    We’re told that the planets which are the hottest are generally closer to the Sun and that the opposite, ceteris paribus, is true. If such objects in the “vacuum” of space are not heated up by the sun’s rays, I would conclude that the planets get at least some of their their heat by pulling it out of their tushies.

    As for the sharpness of focus being the result of “no air” on the moon, that’s sheer stupidity in action, at least for relatively near objects. It would explain any lack of “haze” for very distant objects, but I wouldn’t know if they photoed any because I have not examined any such pics and probably never will.

    I think it’s more realistic to assume that the government is lying than that man has walked on the moon and returned, and can live with that.

  278. Cowboy says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    On Fridays Trunews Rick gets into this failed Rabbis-on-the-moon shot. They talk about how the jew media has instead of calling it a “Torah” have been calling it a “Hebrew bible” that they wanted to plant. Trunews go on to describe how this is new language that jews have come up with in order to take control of the narrative, and they link it to the best selling bible on Amazon which has had Jesus expunged from the pages.

    By removing Jesus from the bible, the jews will thereby eliminate any possibility of being accused of “murdering Jesus”. As I mentioned above, this Christian doctrine is slowly being turned into a “conspiracy theory” and will likely become just as illegal as white nationalism when the Noahide laws are finally enforced. At about 44 min.

    https://www.trunews.com/podcast/last-days-deception-zionists-scheme-to-build-third-temple-in-jerusalem-trunews

  279. @NoseytheDuke

    It’s a common saying that we only use 10% of our brains but it might be more accurate to say that 90% of our brains are used for thinking about and believing in shit that just isn’t true.

    Especially when our “image” is at stake.

    Which reminds me, why do women pretty consistently believe themselves beautiful, while they almost unanimously think their tits and pussies are ugly?

    Forget the moon landings, that’s a question to ponder.

  280. @Cyrano

    Hey, hey, hey, I am in charge of the insults department on this site…

    You must be another hasbara troll. First the insult department, then the world!

  281. @Olivier1973

    Here is what I have to say about Wesley Clark (from my article “Zionism, Crypto-Judaism, and the Biblical Hoax”:

    when Israeli leaders claim that their vision of the global future is based on the Hebrew Bible, we should take them seriously and study the Bible. It is helpful, for example, to be aware that Yahweh has designated to Israel “seven nations greater and mightier than you,” that “you must utterly destroy,” and “show no mercy to them.” As for their kings, “you shall make their name perish from under heaven” (Deuteronomy 7:1-2, 24). The destruction of the “Seven Nations,” also mentioned in Joshua 24:11, is considered a mitzvah in rabbinic Judaism, and by the great Maimonides in his Book of Commandments,[44] and it has remained a popular motif in Jewish culture. Knowing this will help to understand the neocon agenda for World War IV (as Norman Podhoretz names the current global conflict).[45] General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander for NATO in Europe (he led the NATO agression against Serbia twenty years ago), wrote, and repeated in numerous occasions, that one month after September 11, 2001, a Pentagon general showed him a memo “that describes how we’re gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and finishing off with Iran.”[46] Wesley Clark has managed to pass as a whistleblower, but I believe he belongs to what Gilad Atzmon sees as the Jewish controlled opposition, together with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now who interviewed him.[47] Only in 1999 has he revealed being the son of Benjamin Jacob Kanne and the proud descendant of a lineage of Kohen rabbis. It is hard to believe that he has never heard about the Bible’s “seven nations”. Is Clark a crypto-Zionist trying to write history in biblical terms, while blaming these wars on WASP Pentagon warmongers? Interestingly, in his September 20, 2001 speech, President Bush also cited seven “rogue states” for their support of global terrorism, but in his list, Cuba and North Korea replaced Lebanon and Somalia. It is because part of Bush’s entourage refused to include Lebanon and Somalia, while his neocon handlers insisted on keeping the number seven for its symbolic value? Whatever the explanation, I suspect that the importance of targeting exactly “seven nations” after 9/11 stems from the same biblical obsession as the need to have ten Nazis hanged on Purim day 1946 to match the ten sons of Haman hanged in the Book of Esther. Just like Rabbi Bernhard Rosenberg can now marvel at how prophetic the Book of Esther is,[48] the idea is to “realize,” a few decades from now, that World War IV fulfilled Deuteronomy 7: the destruction of Israel’s seven enemy nations. Christian Zionists will be in extasy and praise “the Lord” (as their Bible translates YHWH). Of course, fulfilling prophecies does not always come easy: Isaiah 17:1, “Behold, Damascus will soon cease to be a city, it will become a heap of ruins,” is not quite done, yet.

    • Replies: @Olivier1973
  282. Erebus says:
    @Germanicus

    Well, I don’t know what you’re on about it being “criminal”, but from my conversations with theoreticians of any persuasion, but particularly of Physics, is that they’re acutely aware of, even haunted by, the epistemological questions that begin to loom over their work as they reach the limits of their field.

    As Epistemology concerns itself with explication of the nature of evidence, theoreticians in almost all fields are usually very cognizant of the differences and the sort of proofs each can yield.

    Hence my gobsmackededness at RU’s apparently wilful ignorance of the matter.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  283. @Olivier1973

    Every single one of your sentences is a fallacy.

    Exactly. None of it even rises to the level of either sophistry or casuistry. Laughable bunk at best.

  284. Cowboy says:
    @Threestars

    If you set the shutter speed that high, sa 1/10000 sec, then you will see nothing but black where the lander is shaded. There would be no depth, all colors would be bleached out. But we don’t see that, do we? What we see is some kind of back lighting and lower shutter speeds with perfect focus.

    I think the mooners really need to get something fundamental into their brainwashed heads.

    If the mooners manage to disprove one denier assertion, they have in no any fashion proved that it all wasn’t a hoax. Take this claim about shutter speed. Even if with real fast film and ultra high shutterspeeds (I doubt it on that old Hasselblad) the pictures were possible, that still does not prove that they were taken on the moon.

    Whereas if the “deniers” disprove one blatant Nasa lie, then every other Nasa claim has to be re-examined with the burden of proof for everything on Nasa. This is really where we are now. This is why mooners are so adamant and refuse to engage in debate. Just take Ron Unz as an example.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  285. @Erebus

    Well, I don’t know what you’re on about it being “criminal”, but from my conversations with theoreticians of any persuasion, but particularly of Physics, is that they’re acutely aware of, even haunted by, the epistemological questions that begin to loom over their work as they reach the limits of their field.

    Peddling basically assumptions, theories, wrong assumptions as facts is criminal, especially if they know its bogus.
    There is no such thing as a Photon, and it has lead to arrested development.

    Unbelievable, people debate about ridiculous chemical rockets, and behind the scene, field propulsion is regularly buried again and again, since almost 100 years.
    Its all to do with the moronic Einstein and the dogma established from this nonsense.

  286. @Daniel Rich

    Great analysis. Thanks. A professionnal photographer proves the fakery. This aulis.com site is really doing the job. Ron, please take a look at it.

    • Agree: Olivier1973
    • Replies: @Sparkon
  287. @Pat Hannagan

    The politicians have been playing “Lucy and the football” with the manned moon landing coming any day now for many many years. At some point you just have to point your finger at them and laugh.

    My mutt has more intelligent and funnier tricks.

  288. @Hippopotamusdrome

    Projection is a Cylon ability that allows them to consciously induce an extraordinarily realistic hallucination in the form of an artificial environment around themselves, which they can choose to share with other Cylons.

    Cylons use this ability as a way to detach themselves of reality, and experience the world around them as they wish to, rather than how it is, serving as a psychological comfort.

    https://en.battlestarwikiclone.org/wiki/Projection

    (((Cylon)))

  289. j2 says:
    @Cowboy

    “So my question to you and Mike P is even if the Van Allen Belt didn’t fry the astronauts, have either of you evaluated the likelihood that some of the electronics, sensors or other components could have been fried by the Van Allen Belt or other radiation/em waves?”

    I do not think it was a major problem in late 1960s, early 1970s. Electronics of that time tolerated radiation much better than today. You tell about problems with a radar in late 1980s, but microprocessors and integrated circuits made a break through just before that time. In late 1960s it was separate component semiconductors soldered together. I am sure Apollo did not use electronic tubes (even though they cannot be broken even with an EMP, they tolerate almost any radiation) because tubes are too fragile for rockets, so it was semiconductors, but not much integrated.

    Today you have to close all sensors of satellites/spacecraft when you the fly to VABs, for instance to the anomaly above the southern sea. And still they easily break. But it is because we use highly integrates semiconductor electronics. Those are very sensitive to anything including radiation. Integrated circuits of today are even so small that they spontaneously break up if you just wait long enough, the circuit is destroyed by diffusion of molecules. So, do not store a mobile phone for 30 years and hope it will still work when you power it on, even assuming the net still exists. Our highly integrated electronics also breaks if there is EMP or HMP, unless it has shielding.

    It was not as bad in the old times. In late 1960s and early 1970s there was military grade electronics (it still exists in the USA, it is all poor performance and outdated by civilian technology, but it tolerates a hard environment much better). They had transistors since 1947 and the first integrated circuits were invented in 1959, but the electronics in Apollo must have been mostly made of individual components and it could tolerate more radiation. A proton storm (SPE) would have broken their electronics, but Apollo flights were not in the times of large SPEs.

    We have to notice that both the USA and the SU did send successfully unmanned probes to the Moon and some of them managed to land and even got off. The problem was humans, not electronics or sensors.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
  290. apollonian says: • Website
    @Rurik

    CYCLIC Historical “Decline Of West” Well-Confirmed For Present Developments, Events

    Rurik: this here, # 118, of thine is good summing-up, and I’d urge going only a little further to my afore-mentioned suggestion of satanic empire, the old American Christian having been hi-jacked by Satanists, the satanist leaders being Jews, Judaism mere practical version of Satanism (“Cabala” of “Zohar”), present Jew S A the “dog” wagged by “tail,” Israel. See Talmudical.blogspot.com, RevisionistReview.blogspot.com, and Come-and-hear.com for expo.

    And my notion simply follows CYCLIC (historic) theory in “Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler, the empire/culture/civilization beginning, as in Roman example, in basic honesty, virtue, patriotism, objectivity etc. of original founders, but becoming progressively more corrupt, especially by way of subjectivistic, evermore oriented in moralism and “virtue-signaling” within a kind of “pecking-order,” finally the society to pinnacle of corruption–nearly outright Satanism, as we see presently.

    Of course, one must grasp the root of Satanism in simple, basic philosophy, (extreme) subjectivism, idea reality is created by mind/consciousness, the subject being creator, God, Satanism by definition. Jews then are simply COLLECTIVIST subjectivists whose “group-think” is most practically oriented in dedication, motivation, and organization, giving them dominance/leadership over more isolated, “individualist” subjectivists/Satanists among gentiles even though out-numbered by gentiles, the large Satanist contingent then dominating/intimidating all the rest of the population.

    And KEY, definitive institution is central-banking (see Mises.org for expo), literally legalized counterfeiting, a criminal enterprise, issuing practically INFINITE currency, not REAL MONEY, which is actual instrument of Satanists for gaining absolute control over the culture/society, the mass of over-populated fools, goons, and suckers, dumbed-down by the edjumacation force-fed, distracted and addicted to TV and football games, willingly going-along w. such infinite currency scam, giving Satanists such absolute control.

    Such then is the satanic society which thou essentially describes in thy # 118, here, replete w. the goal of policy being explicit genocide of Agenda-21 and -2030, killing the people outrightly, but at a more regulated pace in way of forced, poison vaccines and poison prescription drugs, poison GMO foods, poisoned water supplies in many areas, still, deadly, destructive “geo-engineering” and “chem-trails,” and toxic radiation as of “5G,” etc. New Test. “Book of Revelations” actually very well describes “end-times” of present CYCLE of “Decline of the West,” wouldn’t thou say?

  291. With all the light on the moon, the shutter speed must have been set very high. You can’t get movement blur under such conditions even if you tried.

    Ok, so much for generalizations. Now tell us what the specific conditions were. Please include moon landing site coordinates, light levels, and film speed at a minimum.

    Sigh. Many commenters here provide definite proof that you can be an entertaining, though distressing, writer while also a moron.

  292. Cowboy says:
    @j2

    Thanks for the thorough answer, J2. It was a DoD Honeywell (flight systems electronics manufacturer) mainframe. Sure, likely not all milspec, but some of it probably was. It was the Arithmetic processor that went all flakey and forced repeated system shutdowns.

    Apollo fans love to regurgitate all the great technological advances from the program. All the advances in computers, video, remote control, communications gear, electronic controls, batteries and motors. For the dune buggy lunar rover too.

    I would not be so quick to brush off these being effected by radiation as you, but I will concede that it does not rise to the level of “proof”.

    • Replies: @j2
  293. apollonian says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    Unz Only Hardens His Prejudice–Not A Bad Sign, Actually

    Well Unz, after all is said and done, buddy, fact remains: THOU ARE JEW, and that’s HUGE big strike against thou, isn’t it? Further, we have thy “Open Ltr to Alt-Right” as testament of thy contempt and condescension for gentiles, don’t we?–aside fm thy idiot logic as when thou refer to “lies” of the people of alt-right, but don’t say what the lies are about or what the actual “lying” consists of. Alt-right folks MUST have something going for them if thou Jews are against them, eh? Ho ho ho ho ho.

    And after all, again, these (“post-modern”) times are actually the pinnacle of Jew domination and control over the world and nearly all “civilization,” such as it is, so thou as Jew are actually quite happy Jews are on top of things, the dumb, over-populated gentiles in-fighting, dis-organized, confused, w. many of those morons, like “Judeo-Christians” (JCs–see Whtt.org and TruthTellers.org for expo), actually allied w. Israel and “neo-cons,” imagining Judaist Satanism is just another version/variant of Christianity, worship of TRUTH (= Christ, Gosp. JOHN 14:6).

    Of course, as Jew, thou can’t help thyself fm thy natural lying, saying we “consp. theorists” say moon-landing is/was “impossible” (we just say there’s no proof), that evidence of anomalies is nil (there are countless anomalies, sucker), etc. Thou just digs thy hole deeper, Jew.

    Interestingly, we actually see thou HARDENING, at least somewhat, thy opinion regarding thy prejudice against the manned moon-landing hoax/conspiracy theory/thesis. For after all, thou are Jew, right?–and thy Jewwiness and hatred and contempt for humanity, hence reason, logic, and objective reality, will come out fm thou and manifest inevitably, inexorably, won’t it?–and doesn’t it?

    So I, for one, see thy “hardening” against the manned moon-landing hoax as only to be expected and sign that the hoax/conspiracy “theory” is actually well-founded in all reason and fact, never doubt. And there are lots of anti-semites (read, good Christians and other healthy humanity) who agree w. me too, I suspect, eh?

  294. j2 says:
    @Cowboy

    “I would not be so quick to brush off these being effected by radiation as you, but I will concede that it does not rise to the level of “proof”.”

    I do not say there would not have been problems with radiation, only it is difficult to argue that they were fatal. I would like to find a clear and simple proof that Americans did not go to the Moon.

    Not only arguments that make it likely. Already this that they made six trips without problems is something that makes you think, how can this be, they must be very lucky people. Israel tried to land a probe on the Moon and failed, with more modern technology. But it is not a proof that Americans did not go there. Maybe they were lucky.

    The same is with the photos. So, some photos have issues, like the shadows that do not converge to a point in the horizon, the one posted by Sparkon. Well, it shows that the photo is a forgery, but even if all photos were forgeries or shot in a studio, it still does not prove that Americans did not go to the Moon. They could have gone, when returning all original photos from there turned out to have failed and they made new ones here on the earth. Unlikely, but possible.

    The announced dosages for the missions also just barely pass the level so that based on them one cannot prove Americans were not there.

    But I keep on looking at the arguments of the Moon Hoaxers, maybe one of them has found a definite proof. In any case, this conspiracy theory is quite possibly true.

    • Replies: @apollonian
    , @Cowboy
  295. Cowboy says:

    This is pretty interesting:

    https://aplanetruth.info/2015/03/21/of-men-moon-and-moonsuits/

    He gets into the mooner-suits:

    liquid waste is whisked away in a permanently attached tube to a metallic reservoir attached here to the stomach” (another tube connection and the liquid held outside the stomach, frozen by the coolant system???!).
    Solid waste is done away with by highly absorbent material much like baby napkins”…..for the entire Mission, they carry their shit on them, over hours and days?
    “And that’s it”
    Off we go into the wild blue yonder with three of us 165 pounders, space gear, helmets, parachutes, communication devices, ropes, balloons, batteries and electronics in a vehicle the size of a volkswagen bug.

    They couldn’t wipe their ass, let alone scratch it, for days on end. All that crap stored inside their space suit too in “absorbant meterial”, along days worth of Urine. Can you imagine how it must have stunk in the capsule on the return flight?

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  296. apollonian says: • Website
    @j2

    Moon-Hoax?–Impossible, Un-Thinkable, In-Conceivable, Thou Impudent, Irreverent Heretics!–How Dare Thou?!

    J2: note only absolute “proof” is sense-perception, but one could then argue we just weren’t looking at the right time and/or place.

    SO, thou must construct a likely INDUCTIVE argument, as in legal investigations and also science–one builds upon particular instances for most likely explanation, eliminating most un-likely, which inductive conclusion then one must argue against to dis-prove (which can’t and hasn’t been done, but for the morons saying it’s “ridiculous,” ho ho ho ho).

    Thus the inductive evidence is un-questionably present for hoax hoax hoax, lies lies lies and lying, fake fake fake–like all the other fakey, fraudulent scams manifest and spitting in face of humanity in this time of Jew-dominated Satanist empire of Agenda-21 and -2030 GENOCIDE, etc., the culture absolutely DOMINATED by the criminal enterprise of central-banking (see Mises.org).

    As follower of economic data and analysis, I can attest anyone would agree the present administration economists all lie outrightly, fudge, and slant the data to max possible to argue Trump’s economy is just gang-busters and booming, inflation is low, un-employment is low, and golly, gee whiz but things couldn’t be better–even though int. rates are amazingly low 2 and 1/2 %–which is unusually low, savers and pensioners not able to make too much by saving, hmmmm.

    Then one needs merely ask oneself if such hoax is possible w. all the propaganda and social-engineering facilities, including the track-record of the known liars who dominate the political scene and establishment, including the Jew-serving “edjumacation,” Jew-controlled TV, radio, newspapers, movie studios, etc., and the evidence is OVERWHELMING.

    Just feast thy eyes upon the screamers in Hollywood pushing “climate-change” lies, against Jewwy, Jew-serving, Israel-first Trump, ALL the present Presidential candidates among Dems pushing open-borders insanity in everyone’s face. Didja’ see Jussie Smollett got all the charges dropped for blatant perjury and false-statements about “hate-crime”? Notice “anti-fa” going about, openly assaulting citizens?

    So as matter of INDUCTION (working fm particulars to the general), the evidence is overwhelming, as I note: hoax is not only quite possible; it’s highly likely, given circumstances, conditions, and TRACK-RECORD (what do thou want?). Given all the MASSIVE, Jewwy, Jew-serving circumstances, hoax and conspiracy is absolutely reasonable conclusion. Don’t forget, loyal Jew, Unz, says consp. theory is “ridiculous”–so doesn’t that clinch it all? Ho ho ho ho.

    Of course, and soooooo un-fortunately, it (such consp. theory) also happens to be “anti-Semitic” and not politically-correct, so therefore it COULDN’T be true, as we all know, Unz serving as foremost exemplary arbiter. What are thou?–some kind of heretic against satanic orthodoxy wherein “truth” is what is declared by credentialed “experts” and rabbis?

  297. I’m increasingly coming to think that NASA (and other space agencies) are either lying about the nature of space and some fundamentals of cutting edge science and engineering or that they’re lying about their achievements in space travel.

    Has anyone considered the possibility that superpower governments treat all this as state and military secrets and hence do not tell us the whole truth, leading to all this confusion? Could it be that their science and technology is far more advance than we think it is? Consider that much of what is now commercially available to us, such as mobile phones, personal computers, internet, satellite communications, and a lot more was available to the military of the superpowers during the cold war but kept secret from the public. We did hear that superpower spy satellites had phenomenal resolution even 40 to 50 years ago, on the range of cms or mms, and now we’re told the best satellite resolution is only about 30 – 50 cm. Surely we would expect even higher resolution by now. And maybe such is available to the superpower spy and military agencies but what they make available for general use is not as advanced. The same could hold for a lot more including the information they make available to us.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  298. @Laurent Guyénot

    Cher Monsieur Guyénot,

    Merci de mentionner cet extrait dont j’avais lu l’article. Dans la mesure du possible je lis tout ce que je peux trouver de vos écrits. Et je suis avec vous en ce qui concerne JFK et le 911.

    Concernant les fêtes juives:

    http://fede-eglises.com/miracle_prophetique.htm

    Une question: recevez-vous des pressions ou des insultes ou des menaces pour ce que vous écrivez?

    Cordialement,
    Olivier

    For our English readers:

    Thanks to mention this extract from you article which I read already. If possible I read all what I can find from your writings. And I am with you on JFK and 911.

    On jewish feasts:

    http://fede-eglises.com/miracle_prophetique.htm

    One question: do you receive pressures or insults or threats for what you write?

    Wholeheartedly.

  299. Sparkon says:
    @Moon Landing Skeptic

    I had already debunked that photo AS17-134-20384 under your article, and made several other comments, as well, but in turn received not even one response from you, Mr. Moon Landing Skeptic. Additionally I had to roll up my sleeves and track down that fake photo you used atop your article, and you simply stood by and said nothing, like a dog that wouldn’t bark.

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing-a-giant-hoax-for-mankind/#comment-3139478

    Thanks for nothing.

    In similar fashion, Ron Unz has dodged all my comments about fakery in the Apollo photos, and chose instead to respond about it to onebornfree, who was chewing on your fake photo, and had previously asserted under a different article at UR that FDR had gone to Germany before WWII to learn about Hitler’s autobahn, thus severely damaging his credibility in my eyes, at least with respect to his knowledge about even basic 20th century history, and also his apparent reluctance to do even a little basic fact-checking before making astonishing assertions about FDR going to see Hitler.

    My comment about beating up on rag dolls seems to have gone over both heads, or maybe all three.

    I was not going to comment here because Linh Dinh is in my doghouse, but really, maybe you will join him there…


    AS17-134-20384

    To recap: the rotation of this image is apparent because both flagpole and the antenna on Schmitt’s helmet are not vertical with respect to the orientation of the photograph. Therefore, the camera had to have been rotated to take the picture. However, in the reflection in Harrison Schmitt’s visor, it is apparent that photographer Gene Cernan is standing straight up, bent only a little at the knees, with no visible way for Cernan to have applied the necessary rotation to the camera since it is rigidly affixed to the chest of his spacesuit, let alone to have framed the photograph with such artistic precision to create the stirring composition. There are more anomalies within this photo, but the rotation problem alone is enough for me to determine that it is a composite.

    The image had to have been faked. i.e. it is a composite of two or more images. Leonid Konovalov’s work confirms it.

    Contrary to what Ron Unz misbelieves, interest in anomalies in the Apollo photographs and the Apollo Moon hoax dates (at least) from the work of Bill Kaysing in the mid 1970s. Wiki:

    He is regarded as the initiator of the Moon hoax movement. … Kaysing wrote a book titled We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle which was self-published in 1976… He was also a participant in the Fox documentary Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? which aired on February 15, 2001.

    Jack White is another expert who did extensive photo-analysis on both the Zapruder film and the Apollo photos. He determined that both show extensive evidence of manipulation.

    https://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_0.htm

    Before there was Photoshop, photo manipulation in most studios was done on big enlargements using paste-ups to make composites, and airbrushing.

    Now, back to the Punch and Judy show. Or maybe Ron Unz will decide it’s time to close comments here too.

    • Replies: @Olivier1973
    , @onebornfree
  300. Dan says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Brilliant.

    No wonder they don’t teach logic in school anymore. Everyone (or most anyway) would think too much. The whole enterprise would collapse.

  301. Mulegino1 says:
    @Nicolás Palacios Navarro

    For all their baying and moaning against the U. S. and “yankee imperialists”, most Latin Americans and Spaniards are utterly in the thrall of American junk culture and ideologies.

    This is tragic and true. Developing an appreciation for true culture requires a great personal effort and a rigorous cultivation of the aesthetic sense. On the other hand, the low brow kosher American counterculture requires no effort of any kind to indulge in.

    Any society or culture dominated by Jews will devolve and spiral into death and dissolution. The Jews always choose the lowest common cultural denominators and the highest interest rates to drag down their host populations to misery and squalor.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  302. Cowboy says:
    @j2

    In the last thread I explained why I though the “lunar rover” was when Nasa jumped the shark.

    I showed in Wiki LEM diagrams how the 400lb (bwaaaaa) lunar rover had to replace the Helium tank. In this fantastic Jim Fetzer interview, he and Scott Henderson go into detail about the rover starting at about 8m. Later, Scott Henderson explains that they needed the Helium to send the fuel to the motors. Without the helium, no power, says Nasa.

    At 35m Henderson also explains how Quadrant 1 also held the reserve battery packs for the Astronauts.

    This video is loaded with informaation that completely debunks the “moon landings”.
    – at about 30m Henderson shows the original storyboards for filming the moon activities, predating the landing, with multiple angles and photographers.
    – at 39m Henderson goes into Aldrin passing hidden proof that it was faked by pointing to his watch.
    – at 50m he shows an old glove on the moon.

    So my question to you, J2, is how could the LEM have landed and taken off without helium to presusure the motors and how could the astronauts have spent days prancing around the moon with out reserve oxygen tanks?

    If they were faking the lunar rover, isn’t that sufficient proof that all the landings were faked?

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  303. @Ron Unz

    Well, well, well.

    I am deeply sorry to say that it looks like you do not want to read the arguments of scientists who do not agree with you.

    But first of all you need to understand the difference between fallacies and arguments.

    On fallacies:

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

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

    http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

    Now you wrote:

    Why did I spend decades assuming there was no conspiracy? Well, because almost none of the vast amount of evidence was ever seriously reported by the MSM, so I didn’t even know it existed. But once I began looking into the matter, I quickly discovered the huge accumulation of evidence and past testimony, and it easily persuaded me.

    I am quite surprised that it took you “decades” to discover that there was something (in fact: many things) wrong in the Warren report. It was enough to read Anthony Summers “Conspiracy” published in 1980 to understand that very powerful people were hiding the truth… and the conspiracy.

    On the other hand it is necessary to be gullible to take what the MSM is writing at face value. (By the way, ignorance is not an argument.) I am very happy that you became interested in the JFK case and began to study it. Finally you changed your mind. That is evidence of cleverness. Now why don’t you want to do the same thing with the Apollo “missions”? Why are you again believing what the MSM try to make you swallow?

    All I see is a bunch of (often anonymous) non-scientists endlessly saying the Moon landing was “scientifically impossible” and also pointing to a bunch of Apollo photos that mean nothing to me.

    Why are you insulting people? This too does not make an argument. I for one am a scientist as it is obvious for some other people who are caring to write here.

    Photos mean nothing? I guess you will not care to explain why. My understanding at this point is that you do not want to look at them in fear that it could change your opinion and belief. I will post now only one photo which is evidence that it was not taken on the moon:

    And if you believe someone responsible will care to send 2 men flying over the moon with this flying pan, I pity you:

    And this happened not only once:

    I wish you a good trip to the moon in such vehicle.

    being aimed at luring gullible “conspiracy people” into making themselves look totally ridiculous.

    Better to be careful, this could backfire!

    On the positive side, all Moon Hoax nonsense will henceforth be restricted to these dedicated Moon Hoax threads, and won’t be allowed to clutter up other discussions, as it sometimes did in the past.

    It is your site and you do what you want of course. Imo your decision is correct at the condition that you will not close this thread with a “technical” justification.

  304. @Cowboy

    Can you imagine how it must have stunk in the capsule on the return flight?

    One does not have to imagine; all one has to do is read some of the comments of the true believers. However, thanks to many of them, I now have even more doubt that the official story is bogus, and am even more firmly convinced that we are of a goofy genus and a scurvy species, Lunaticus profundis.

    From my intimacy with these men I acquired a new vice: abnormally developed pride and an insane assurance that it was my vocation to teach men, without knowing what.

    To remember that time, and my own state of mind and that of those men (though there are thousands like them today), is sad and terrible and ludicrous, and arouses exactly the feeling one experiences in a l unatic asylum.

    We were all then convinced that it was necessary for us to speak, write, and print as quickly as possible and as much as possible, and that it was all wanted for the good of humanity. And thousands of us, contradicting and abusing one another, all printed and wrote — teaching others. And without noticing that we knew nothing, and that to the simplest of life’s questions: What is good and what is evil? we did not know how to reply, we all talked at the same time, not listening to one another, sometimes seconding and praising one another in order to be seconded and praised in turn, sometimes getting angry with one another — just as in a lunatic asylum.

    -Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy, A Confession,

    Would any sane person without a sense of humor have considered returning to planet Funny Farm?

    Regards to all, JS.

    • Agree: Mulegino1
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  305. @Mulegino1

    On the other hand, the low brow kosher American counterculture requires no effort of any kind to indulge in.

    There it is.

  306. Here’s an interesting take. Not sure if it was already posted on the other article.

    • LOL: Olivier1973
  307. @Sparkon

    Spot on!

    Always I was very surprised that there are so few photos available with the Earth and some moon landscape or even better with the LEM. Cannot remember one with the LEM. Anyone?

    About photo AS17-134-20384 it looks like the source of light on the “moon” (close to the “moon” horizon) is not the same as the source of light on the Earth. Am I wrong?

  308. @jacques sheete

    OOps!

    I now have even more doubt that the official story is bogus…

    I meant “less.”

  309. @Commentator Mike

    I’m increasingly coming to think that NASA (and other space agencies) are either lying about the nature of space and some fundamentals of cutting edge science and engineering or that they’re lying about their achievements in space travel.

    How about both? On the one hand, they lie about some very basic assumptions in many areas people take for granted without any sane reason, because it is a theory. Ie, the theory is entirely wrong and everything that builds up on the theory.
    On the other hand, they have put enormous amounts of money and resources into researching hidden physics and engineering, not available to the general public.

    The hidden physics understand and can explain fields, energy, magnetism, light and dielectricity, which means, they know we live in an electric/plasma universe.

    You will be amazed when in which year the first electric car was developed.

  310. utu says:

    LD, if you are that curious and you think this whole Moon Hoax is that important why don’t you check few things before you start repeating what you heard or read somewhere? Why don’t you apply your elevated skepticism not only to NASA but also to the NASA skeptics? Like for instance you wrote

    “Charles Duke leaving a plastic wrapped snapshot of his family on the moon surface, so he could photograph it. What a heartwarming moment or, should I say, a heartmelting farce, since it’s 212 degrees Fahrenheit up that way! “

    You can verify this very easily. Put some Kodak or Polaroid photograph in a ziplock bag in a boiling water (212 °F) and see what happens after 1 min, 1o min, 1 h. But you are a lazy bum and you won’t do it. Coming up with rhetorical devices devoid of rational argument that are purely emotive is much easier. It does not require any real effort. Unfortunately this is what many people on both sides of this controversy do.

    I would give a similar advice to Buzz Mohawk for his #254 comment. Move you ass. Go out and take some pictures on low turbidity day and they will be as sharp as if taken in vacuum. But he is also lazy. Spouting specious arguments is much easier.

    The debate on this controversy does not make sense w/o a moderation and filtering out pointless emotive arguments. I do not agree with Ron Unz that the lack of whistleblowers and the fact that Russia did not make any accusations is a sufficient proof that the NASA story is true. But I agree with him that the field of Moon Hoax proponents is populated with too many credulous (and possibly acting in bad faith) people. Yes, they are all skeptics of NASA story yet they eat up any nonsensical argument to the contrary of NASA story. Just as well the debate on it could be shut down because it has too low signal-to-noise ratio.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
  311. Mike P says:
    @j2

    The “talk” sequence is indeed only suggestive, but it doesn’t strictly prove much. However, the pictures of Earth are different.

    1. It is clear that they have indeed put the camera far away from the window, but Armstrong is heard stating explicitly that the camera right next to the window and indeed fills it entirely. The narrator’s explanations on this point are fully supported by the video and audio in the clip.

    2. The image of the “Earth” may seem authentic at first glance, but it is in fact anything but. Here is a screen shot from the video; I have been adjusted the proportions so that the “Earth” appears approximately spherical. I have also put a pink dot where, in July, the North Pole should approximately be located.

    Can you make out any of the continents in this picture? I can’t. Also, those two cloud bands that span the entire face of the globe in east-west direction look surprising.

    This picture may be consistent with a partial view of some part of the Earth surface, limited by the circumference of the window, as the narrator suggests; it certainly is not the Earth as a whole.

    • Replies: @interested guy
  312. @Cowboy

    Nice photo shoot above the command module with the moon in the background. Either aliens took the picture or it never happened–too funny. 😉

  313. turtle says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Moon Hoaxism as Religion

    I have no data, but I surmise many of the Moon Hoax proponents (those who, notwithstanding overwhelming physical evidence, contend the moon landings did not happen) are likely to be “young earth creationists” as well. Some parallels are worth noting.
    Such people are likely to assert:
    1. The laws of nature were somehow “different” in those days.
    2. Geologic evidence was “put there by Satan (the Great Deceiver) to lead us astray.”
    etc.

    • Replies: @apollonian
  314. Cowboy says:
    @utu

    Here is a great video exposing Nasa:

    NASA was created to make interstellar travel believable. The Apollo Space Program foisted the idea that man could travel to, and walk upon, the moon. Every Apollo mission was carefully rehearsed and then filmed in large sound stages at the Atomic Energy Commissions Top Secret test site in the Nevada Desert and in a secured and guarded sound stage at the Walt Disney Studios within which was a huge scale mock-up of the moon.

    All of the names, missions, landing sites, and events in the Apollo Space Program echoed the occult metaphors, rituals, and symbology of the Illuminati’s secret religion: The most transparent was the faked explosion on the spacecraft Apollo 13, named “Aquarius” (new age) at 1:13 (1313 military time) on April 13, 1970 which was the metaphor for the initiation ceremony involving the death (explosion), placement in the coffin (period of uncertainty of their survival), communion with the spiritual world and the imparting of esoteric knowledge to the candidate (orbit and observation of the moon without physical contact), rebirth of the initiate (solution of problem and repairs), and the raising up (of the Phoenix, the new age of Aquarius) by the grip of the lions paw (reentry and recovery of Apollo 13). 13 is the (occult) number of death and rebirth, death and reincarnation, sacrifice, the Phoenix, the Christ (perfected soul imprisoned in matter), and the transition from the old to the new. Another revelation to those who understand the symbolic language of the Illuminati is the hidden meaning of the names of the Space Shuttles, “A Colombian Enterprise to Endeavor for the Discovery of Atlantis. . . and all Challengers shall be destroyed.

    • Agree: apollonian
    • Troll: utu
    • Replies: @j2
  315. Cyrano says:

    I love the smell of fresh conspiracy in the morning. To all fellow conspi-racists, you are all bonkers. Why the moon landing conspiracy doesn’t make any sense: Well let’s see.

    What would be the motive of the US government in perpetrating such conspiracy? To impress and intimidate friends and foes with its technological prowess. It makes sense so far.

    What would be the biggest drawback of such scheme? The potential of embarrassment and humiliation outweighs the possible prestige enhancement to such a degree that any sane person would refrain from proceeding with such conspiracy program.

    If they can control the conspiracy – that’s fine, only a limited number of extremely bright fellows who frequent sites such as this will be able to figure it out – but the fallout will be limited. If the conspiracy fails in a spectacular fashion – basically blows in the face of its creators – it will make them look like such fools that they will be the laughing stock of history. As much as I don’t have respect for western governments, I don’t think that they are foolish enough to take such chances.

  316. Iris says:
    @jacques sheete

    I’ve also learned that we’re a race of wretches.

    You belong to a species of classy gentlemen, Jacques. It is plain to see, even an ocean away.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  317. apollonian says: • Website
    @turtle

    What “Evidence”?–There’s No Compelling, Substantial “Evidence” But For Lies, Hoax

    The Jew tells us,

    “I have no data, but I surmise many of the Moon Hoax proponents (those who, notwithstanding overwhelming physical evidence, contend the moon landings did not happen)….”

    Jew, tell us WHAT “physical evidence” thou are talking about, sucker. There’s absolutely NO substantial evidence at all, whatsoever, PERIOD. There’s just the usual Jew/Jewwy lies and lying by Jewwy liars who assert and declare, and “physical”?–there’s just fakey photographs, that’s all. Then I guess there’s the rockets and “vehicles” which thou pretends sent men to the moon, ho ho ho ho. I thought Jews were supposed to be “smart”?

  318. j2 says:

    How about that some Apollo missions went to the Moon, but unmanned. I wrote a short text:
    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2019/04/13/a-simple-third-alternative-to-moon-hoax-and-to-moon-believers/

    It is not the final world on this issue, for sure, but why not like that?

    • Replies: @Erebus
  319. Amon says:
    @durd

    Would they need to fire the thrusts all the time or did they do it in short intervals to keep the landing place visible. Frankly, as far as I know they slowed it down to a speed in which they could make a soft landing without propulsion whipping up a ton of dust.

    And to rant about something else.

    Why did NASA never go back? How could they, their budget was slashed so much they can barely do anything these days and has to ask Elon Musk or the Russians to do the heavy lifting for them. It got so bad that by NASA’s own words they had to resort to reusing old priceless equipment like the original lunar landing footage tapes to record new stuff on. NASA has a budget of $21.5 billion for 2019 and their SLS system is slated to cost 1 billion every time its used, that is, once they manage to finish it.

    Sending a satellite into orbit costs between 10 to 400 million at the current price range and that does not factor in the price for the satellite itself. Add to that the actual cost of NASA itself and the once great space program of the US becomes a joke for what is left couldn’t even keep a school running.

    The vast resources that the US brags so much about have been tied into maintaining the global empire and lining the pockets of private contractors from research trough production to sale. NASA gets around 400 billion over a 20 year period, Lockheed and Martin gets 1.5 trillion to develop and sell an obsolete fighter jet that can’t do half of the stuff promised that will be sold at a 90 million price tag per unit doing the same time.

    At this rate, I doubt the US will go back to the moon because we all know that the cash for it will be drained off and sent into the pockets of some defense contractor instead.

    On a less mundane level, shit happens, how often don’t we hear of some idiot doing something that wreck something priceless because they are too stupid to know they are f-ing up.

    • Replies: @durd
    , @Commentator Mike
  320. Cowboy says:
    @Cyrano

    Here is a very old Walt Disney cartoon about the Masons, in the end Mickey gets his girl.

    The renowned33 degree Freemason Disney filmed episodes about space with Werner von Braun in the lead up to Apollo. Just like this old cartoon, the moon spoof was about mind control. It goes back a lot further that the “moon landing”.

    Question: What is worse, faking a moon landing or getting hundreds of thousands of Americans killed for some occultic dream of reccreating Solomon’s temple?

    • Replies: @Cyrano
    , @Cowboy
  321. apollonian says: • Website
    @Cyrano

    Jews, Satanists Skate–Long As Central-Bank, Fiat-Currency System Holds

    Cyrano: just look at 9/11 conspiracy by thou Jews (see Bollyn.com and his work, “Solving 9/11”). Lots of us anti-semites (true Christian patriots) knew then and know now it was Jews, including esp. Israel, but the task was merely to maintain their base–ENOUGH suckers, morons, goons, fools, and “useful idiots” like thou were fooled to enough extent, the rest kept bewildered by all the complicated details, that Jews, including Israel got what they wanted. And Jews KNEW further that there would be further events following 9/11 that the details would go down “memory-hole,” confusing things enough within minds of enough suckers–get it?

    And don’t forget thou filthy Satanists and Jews leading, control the top instrument of this satanic society, the central-bank (see Mises.org; use their site search-engine for particular terms), so thou can control the mass-media, edjumacation, entertainment, etc., ENOUGH, to keeping the suckers and morons distracted and confused to ENOUGH extent, for ENOUGH time–long as thy fraudulent banking system holds-out, starting wars in Syria, Iraq, Libya and elsewhere, Ukraine, and now lately in Venezuela, perhaps, maybe.

    For sociologically, most people follow leadership, and those are only people thou satanic scum have to substantially fool, at least most of them, ENOUGH. Long as thy primary instrument remains intact, the central-bank. And when the central-bank begins to fail Satanists will just start a war or wars to muddy the waters as they make their escape, as they always have.

    Moon landing hoax worked, just like the confusion about JFK assassination consp. worked–even though about 90 % now understand it was conspiracy–the people are cowards and just keep themselves fm serious thinking about it all, pretending to themselves it’s now ancient hist., caring only about watching TV and the football games for foreseeable future–they’re truly cattle to great extent.

    What thou Jews REALLY worry about is when it all comes to a head, all at once; THEN thou Jews will have something big to worry about–when the central-bank and fiat-money system finally collapses, coming soon, sucker, ho hoo ho ho ho.

  322. veto says:

    Obviously, Unz believes it is politically expedient to pretend to believe in the moon landings, and somewhat restrict the topic here. This myth is benign. The other two, septic. One might want to let it be, for now. When everything else comes crashing down, this will, too.

    • Agree: Olivier1973
  323. Cyrano says:
    @Cowboy

    You are getting closer, but you are still way off. Why distract yourself with phony conspiracy theories? Is that really the worse that your government has ever done? Lie to you – poor babies? And why cry only about hundreds of thousands of innocent American lives, when there are millions harmed around the world. Or as an American “patriot”, only American lives matter to you.

    If conspiracy theories didn’t exist, it would have been worthed for the government to create them, just to keep you chasing your own tails and keeping you away from looking into much bigger lies and misdeeds. Conspiracy theories don’t mater. They are waste of time. There is so much more at stake that should keep you occupied thinking about it, but it doesn’t.

    • LOL: apollonian
    • Replies: @Daniel Rich
  324. @Cyrano

    If the conspiracy fails in a spectacular fashion – basically blows in the face of its creators – it will make them look like such fools that they will be the laughing stock of history.

    I will suggest that you will tell that to Colin Powell, G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney and all neocons. Are they to this day considered as “such fools that they [are] the laughing stock of history”? By the way the neocons are still in power, aren’t they?

    Moreover when the truth will be made obvious, all people having supported the hoax despite the facts will be the laughing stock of humanity.

    As much as I don’t have respect for western governments, I don’t think that they are foolish enough to take such chances.

    Your thoughts are illusions. Soon every participant of these fake “missions” will be dead. So that there will be no one to blame, no one who could be ashamed of the doing.

    And what about JFK, MLK, RFK and 911. “They” are still in control, aren’t they? They took their chances, didn’t they? And we see the results, because gullible people believe what they are told by the governments.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
  325. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Sparkon

    “….onebornfree, who was chewing on your fake photo, and had previously asserted under a different article at UR that FDR had gone to Germany before WWII to learn about Hitler’s autobahn, thus severely damaging his credibility in my eyes, at least with respect to his knowledge about even basic 20th century history, …”

    Aaaww, give me a break concerning FDR and the Interstate highways! Besides, I’m just an immigrant, so my US history gets a little shaky sometimes :-).

    As far as I can see, my main point still stands, to whit: whether or not FDR visited Germany, he was directly involved in furthering/expanding the US Federal interstate highway system scam, a system apparently copied directly from the Germans own socialist “autobahn” road system scam – so various US government officials obviously had visited Germany, seen it first hand, liked what they saw, then instigated the same scam over here.

    As to the moon photos and your reply/comment to me in the other thread where you asked why I would assume that the 2nd photo down in the article was a genuine [ but still fraudulent] NASA photo as with the first one used in the article, [ which is definitely not a NASA original], I would ask you:

    1] why would I not assume it to be a genuine NASA photo? Am I supposed to assume that all the photos used in the article were , as with the first photo, just more, after the fact, spoofs ? Why would I make such an unproven assumption? After all, in any case I already knew that all of the official NASA moon landing photos are fraudulent regardless, so that the 2nd one used in the article could easily be just another one, [ I haven’t seen them all].

    Bottom line: Regardless of source, NASA or otherwise, its another fraud.

    If you claim it [the 2nd photo down used in the “The Moon Landings: A Giant Hoax for Mankind?”] is not an original NASA photo, please tell me its origin and creator, if you know[ and if the spirit moves you 🙂 ], I’d be interested to know who he/she is.

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @iffen
  326. @jacques sheete

    When one chooses to call one’s moonlander something akin to ‘Bearshit’ one is asking for trouble… imho…

  327. @Cyrano

    Isn’t the realization of governments lying to citizens the first step toward seeing the true ‘light?’

    • Replies: @iffen
  328. iffen says:
    @onebornfree

    he was directly involved in furthering/expanding the US Federal interstate highway system scam

    I will give you a headstart on US history. The Interstate Highway System was approved in 1956 (FDR 1933-1945) with President Dwight D. Eisenhower given credit for pushing it through the Congress. It is presumed that he had had a close look at the Autobahn. (Or maybe it’s just a German thing that made it through to descendants.)

  329. Erebus says:
    @j2

    Your’s is the theory that was being bandied about 40 odd yrs ago, when moon landings came up over beers in the Grad Club. A bit of a kluge, but workable. Certainly, having no humans on board greatly simplifies requirements. Back then, at least outside the US, the question that most often came up was not “How did they do it?” but “How did they fake it?” amongst those interested in the subject. Some variation on your idea was the most popular answer at the time.

    BTW…
    Are you sure voice transmissions were encoded? I’ve always understood that voice (& video?) transmissions were bandwidth limited analogue FM transmissions carried on a unified signal. They could stripped out before any coding/decoding of data. Don’t remember enough about this stuff to argue the point, but your comment jarred with my memory so I bring it up.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @j2
  330. Cyrano says:
    @Olivier1973

    I think you are confusing things. There is a difference between lying, and conspiracy. Furthermore, the governments are able to get away with far worse offenses than lying – because they make the laws which exonerate their crimes.

    I suggest you try this experiment: Arm yourself with a gun and go to your local corner store and try to rob it. When you get caught – at your trial, in your defense tell the judge that you were trying to bring democracy to the corner store, because its owners looked middle-eastern and you thought that they could use some democracy.

    When that doesn’t work – ask yourself, how can your government get away with such nonsense, but you can’t. You might think that I am contradicting myself – that governments can get away with conspiracies too. Conspiracies are too complicated. Simple lies usually get the job done.

    • LOL: apollonian
  331. iffen says:
    @onebornfree

    Heck, I can be more generous. Especially if you are studying for your naturalization exam. I know that there are way too many scams in the US for you to keep up with (who can!) The UR pushes a scam, a hoax or a conspiracy every week and it can’t even keep up. Just use a little mnemonics.

    Roosevelt > Rothchilds > [W]rong enemy > WWII scam

    Eisenhower > German name > German Autobahn > Interstate Highway System scam

  332. iffen says:
    @Daniel Rich

    Isn’t the realization of governments lying to citizens the first step toward seeing the true ‘light?’

    Yes.

    It means that you realize that Big Brother truly loves you and because of that love he wants to shield you from the ugly truth.

  333. Galan says:

    Roughly there are three types of people in this debate: the believers, the disbelievers, and the confused. In the thread of the original article of April 1, the position of the disbelieves and skeptics was summarized at #1500 and #1561. A similar summary of the position of the believers will be useful for the confused and for the debate in general.

  334. durd says:
    @Amon

    3000 lbs of thrust will hold 3000 lbs of anything off the ground on earth if the controls can balance it. For every reaction there is equal and opposite reaction. So the amount of force supporting and slowing down the lander is 3000 lbs. as they say, and this would be near 3000 lbs. against the moon surface, the closer the lander was to the moon. Just a split second of 50 lbs of thrust near the landing would send the dust flying as it is far greater than 50 mph wind which also kicks up dust!

    At 100 ft Neil says they were kicking up dust:

    “102:45:02 Duke: 60 seconds (of fuel left before the ‘Bingo’ call). 102:45:17 Aldrin: 40 feet, down 2 1/2. Picking up some dust.

    [Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief – “I first noticed that we were, in fact, disturbing the dust on the surface when we were something less than 100 feet; we were beginning to get a transparent sheet of moving dust that obscured visibility a little bit. As we got lower, the visibility continued to decrease. I don’t think that the (visual) altitude determination was severely hurt by this blowing dust; but the thing that was confusing to me was that it was hard to pick out what your lateral and downrange velocities were, because you were seeing a lot of moving dust that you had to look through to pick up the stationary rocks and base your translational velocity decisions on that. I found that to be quite difficult. I spent more time trying to arrest translational velocity than I thought would be necessary.”]

    https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.landing.html

    There has to be dust on those landing pads and elsewhere. Even if they freefalled from 16 ft or dropped down the thrust to 10 lbs, 20 lbs, or 200 lbs you are going to kick up dust in a dusty environment.Even the dust they kicked up at 100 ft. has a good potential to land on the lander.

    This is utterly inarguable but does not prove we didn’t land on the moon…just that sump’n funny is going on.

    Per usual.

    • Replies: @utu
  335. @Amon

    It got so bad that by NASA’s own words they had to resort to reusing old priceless equipment like the original lunar landing footage tapes to record new stuff on.

    Now this must be the biggest lie in their catalogue of lies. So what did they need tapes for again if they had no money for further missions as you claim? Now how much is the price of a rocket and how much the price of some tape? Why didn’t they just ask Hollywood to donate some tapes and record over some studio’s old crap if they were so desperate to record whatever new marvels? Hell, even the local video store would have given up their porn section if there was a call to do the patriotic thing and help out NASA.

    • Replies: @Amon
    , @Cowboy
    , @Mike P
  336. utu says:
    @durd

    Last 2 meters the Lunar Modul was in a free fall. The rocket engine was cut off when Lunar Module was still above the ground. So any dust particles that had lower elevation that the Lunar Model reached the ground before the Lunar Model and thus they could not fall on Lunar Module “legs”.

    “…in the final stage of the moon landing the descent stage’s rocket engine had to be throttled back to only a small fraction of its maximum thrust and then cut off entirely a couple of seconds before the landing pads touched the surface. Thus, the LM dropped the last few metres onto the lunar surface in freefall! The shock was absorbed by each landing leg’s strut-and-truss assembly.”
    https://www.quora.com/What-are-those-long-metal-rods-below-the-Lunar-Modules-landing-gear-for-and-how-do-they-work

    If some dust particle were ejected above the Lunar Module it is still possible that they reached the surface before the Lunar Module if, say 1-2 meters above the ground the engine was cut off the Lunar Module velocity could have been near zero while the particles that were above were falling in free fall already had higher downward velocity and overtook the Lunar Module.

    Once the landing gears were deployed, mechanical interlocks were released which allowed the probes to be extended by a spring driven mechanism. In this configuration, the probes extended to 5 feet 7.2 inch below the landing gear footpads.

    When any of the 3 probes touched the surface, the pressure on the probe head would activate the switch. This in turn would turn on 2 blue “Lunar Contact” lights which would alert the astronauts to turn off the descent engine so that the LM can settle on the surface.

    http://oi68.tinypic.com/2lsjxw6.jpg

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Cowboy
    , @durd
  337. anon[219] • Disclaimer says:

    Linh should do a book interviewing today’s Vietnamese on their views and opinions on the Vietnam War.

    Maybe interview various Vietnamese who have different perspectives – some from the North, some from the South, some who are in business today, others who still believe in communism. Some who rightly hate the U.S., others who’ve been affected by Agent Orange, etc etc

    • Agree: eah, bluedog
  338. Sunshine says:
    @Justvisiting

    I wasn’t born when the moon landing happened, but my mother was. They watched it with my paternal grandparents, who were rural Appalachian coal miner/housewife with maybe at most, an 8th grade education. Papaw said he thought it was all a hoax and a lie. My mother told me she thought he was crazy, until one day she realized he was probably right. This was after she had worked for the federal government (not in a related field). A lot of people that didn’t grow up with tv and mass media, saw through the BS.

  339. j2 says:
    @Cowboy

    Cowboy, you asked about the Lunar Rover.

    I think the easiest explanation is that the Lunar Rover used in the last three Apollo missions was a robot. Russians used a similar robot in unmanned Moon mission earlier and Chines have used later. There is a logical reason why you want to send a moving robot to an unmanned Moon mission. This implies that all Apollo flights were unmanned but the last three did land on the Moon. They collected samples and sent photos. At least one of the probes got back to the Earth.

    This assumption that the rover was a robot for a unmanned Moon landing explains:
    – where it fitted. It fitted well as there were no astronauts
    – why it was needed. astronauts had legs, but if there were no astronauts you need a robot
    – why it was so expensive, as a robot it was expensive

  340. j2 says:
    @Erebus

    “Are you sure voice transmissions were encoded?”

    In every communication you have to encode/decode on several layers: for data you have to make data encoding for presenting information as a sequence of signs, then you have to add error coding and finally you have to modulate it to get a signal that can be transmitted in the media, media being vacuum in this case.

    The step that makes it heavy in this Moon case (very long distances) is error coding. The distance is too long (even to a LEO it is too long) for error detection and retransmission, which e.g. Internet’s TCP uses. You have to use FEC, forward error correction, which adds quite many bits to the end of each data frame. Checking FEC with processing power of that time did take some time.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  341. j2 says:
    @Erebus

    “Your’s is the theory that was being bandied about 40 odd yrs ago, when moon landings came up over beers in the Grad Club. A bit of a kluge, but workable. Certainly, having no humans on board greatly simplifies requirements.”

    I claim no originality to any of my versions of conspiracy theories. This is not an area for original scientific work, it is about what to think about these conspiracy theories. I just try to check if conspiracy theoreticians have a good basis on their claim. Unmanned missions is the simplest explanation for the Lunar Rover. Why was it needed when astronauts can walk? The simplest solution is that three last Apollo missions managed to go to the Moon and had a robot to take photos there and collect rock samples. Probably they got back at least one mission and got some authentic moon rocks. The USA managed to land on the Moon before Apollo in an unmanned mission, and did similar things later, so did Russians, and Russians got some moon stones back.

  342. @Linh Dinh

    @linh I’d be happy to send you some collections digitally (kindle) or print. I’m in Vietnam right now…

    I think you’d be impressed by his sadistic wit and virulent critique of the scelerotic state.

    Etheridge Knight is new to me, so I will look up his work/life.

    https://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/5952/frederick-seidel-the-art-of-poetry-no-95-frederick-seidel

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jun/06/frederick-seidel-interview-widening-income-inequality

  343. @iffen

    IFFEN

    I keep going back to Stanley, a husky Polish guy who played football at Central Michigan on a scholarship. He was also getting a degree in advertising journalism.

    Then, in his sophomore year aged about 20 or 21, he got a Polish Catholic girl pregnant. He returned to Flint and married her.

    At that point, Stanley was stuck. He borrowed from his parents and mortgaged a box and got a job running a salon.

    Flint’s Polish population fled. The city became a half-deserted graveyard of crack deals and murders. Years later, I contacted Stanley on social media.

    His wife, ironically, abandoned him and ran off to California with their kid. She met some guy out their in Northern California and was out the door with their kid. Stanley had to stay in Flint to pay for the box he mortgaged to raise a family he had never intended to have with her long after his ex-wife and daughter were gone out West to sunnier climes and better economies.

    I asked Stanley why he stayed and he told me he could not give his house away. Somehow, he managed to hold a job. His brother ran away to Chicago’s Polish community to become a cop.

    Stanley could not afford to leave. Go where? Be homeless in Florida or California with the bank after him? Half of a completed degree? Little money.

    There are loads of Stanley’s in the US who end up abandoned.

    Here is the thing to remember to. The 1% already has their suitcases packed. They figure the US will get worse and become more like Brazil and then it will time for them to manage their assets from the house in France or wherever. IT millionaires generally seem to like New Zealand.

    And when things get really bad in the US the people who made all the money off the backs of the labor class will flee in private jets to homes in new countries. Their money is not in US banks. It is in Switzerland or Hong Kong or Seychelles.

    We saw this in South Africa. The wealthy and educated SA whites abandoned Boer blue-collar people to the mercy of the ANC. The same thing will happen in the US.

    It has happened to whites who could not get out of post-industrial graveyards like Detroit or Flint like Stanley.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @jacques sheete
    , @anon
  344. gT says:

    Russia put the first satellite into space. Russia had the first man in space. Yet it was America who put the first man on the moon, something Russia has never been able to do. And Russian rockets are still the best, then and now. “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark …”

    • Replies: @Erebus
  345. Amon says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Well lets see.

    They had the solar probes, the voyager missions, the mars missions, unmanned lunar missions, the job to map the earth with satellites and the deep sea penetration program between 1970 to 1990.

    Lastly we should remember that for some really, really stupid and unknown reason one contracted IBM employee working for NASA decided to steal two computers and magnetic tapes from NASA.

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/07/nasa-computer-engineer-basement/

    But lets not forget that NASA is a government agency cloaked in respect. Do you have any idea how much it would damage their credibility and get the higher ups fired on the spot if they went out and begged people for monetary support and equipment because the government isn’t giving them enough cash?

  346. Cowboy says:
    @utu

    “3000 lbs of thrust will hold 3000 lbs of anything off the ground on earth if the controls can balance it. For every reaction there is equal and opposite reaction. So the amount of force supporting and slowing down the lander is 3000 lbs. as they say, and this would be near 3000 lbs. against the moon surface, the closer the lander was to the moon. Just a split second of 50 lbs of thrust near the landing would send the dust flying as it is far greater than 50 mph wind which also kicks up dust!

    Last 2 meters the Lunar Modul was in a free fall. The rocket engine was cut off when Lunar Module was still above the ground. So any dust particles that had lower elevation that the Lunar Model reached the ground before the Lunar Model”

    utu, do you know how high a meter is? 2 meters is a little higher than a person is tall, and thousands of lbs of thrust at that height would have blown all dust for dozens of meters around the LEM completely away. Now look at the immaculate LEM leg standing in an inch of dust. This argument that you present is something I would expect from an imbecile.

    Speaking of imbeciles, have you even changed a diaper? Have you even seen what baby shit does to a baby’s bottom after an hour?

    Now imagine eating food from a tube and drinking tang for weeks on end. Then imaging wearing one pair of diapers filled with that wet acidic green ooze for days at a time, likely with it running down your leg:

    Even the Urine system is very dubious, especially when wearing massive space suits and even gloves.

    https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htm

    The astronauts simply did not spend days at a time carousing around the moon wearing diapers full of green tube food crap, ergo the astronauts did not land on the moon.

    • Agree: apollonian
    • Troll: utu
    • Replies: @James Forrestal
  347. Cowboy says:
    @Commentator Mike

    In my comment 310, I linked to a Jim Fetzer interview of Scott Henderson.

    In that interview Henderson and Fetzer keep cracking up because Nasa was using the same equipment for every fake moon landing. There was only 1 LEM, and there was only 1 “lunar rover”. They show damage and other artifacts that reappear in every “landing” which were in the same spot. It would not be a surprise if they also reused “film”.

    This landing spot, which Henderson suspects is Crystal Lake AZ, was on a junk yard that they sprayed with some kind of powder/foam insulation. Henderson goes through the pictures and footage using modern high resolution equipment and picks out objects in the junkyard. An old glove. An old Corvette. An old Studebaker. It boggles the mind. Fetzer and Henderson are yucking it up the whole time, talking about the absurdity of people claiming how it would be “too hard to fake”, yet the faked landing is so amateurish it is insulting.

    He also covers all the golf balls on the moon. Apparently they got so bored filming and refilming the landings that the “astronauts” started using the Apollo junk yard moon landing pad as a golf driving range!

  348. Erebus says:
    @j2

    In every communication you have to encode/decode on several layers…

    Perhaps with data transmission, as that would be digital.
    Apollo almost certainly used ordinary analogue for voice, and certainly for video. That would mean FM, AM, or maybe some form of PWM.

    I can’t imagine they had anywhere near the data processing capacity needed to livestream voice, much less video. No coding / decoding needed with analogue.

    • Replies: @j2
  349. Mike P says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Hell, even the local video store would have given up their porn section if there was a call to do the patriotic thing and help out NASA.

    They did – but the NASA guys decided to keep the porn tapes and erase their own ones instead.

    • LOL: Erebus
  350. iffen says:
    @jeff stryker

    There are loads of Stanley’s in the US who end up abandoned.

    You will not get an argument from me that the current economic structure has not beaten down the working class. The elites don’t even pay lip service to the idea that the working class should share in the benefits of the economy. Your post-industrial graveyards didn’t fall from the sky. There were created by intentional economic policies.

    My point is that since everyone can’t move or get to a better economic environment, we would benefit by working to improve conditions in the home communities. It is very complicated. I will end up surrounded by blacks and others, and I don’t plan on moving. The school that my children went to was about 5% black. The grandchildren go to the same school and it is over 50% black now. The parents of the youngest would really like to get her into a private school, but since the income of the working class has been flat for about the last 40 years or so there is no way that they can afford it. I guess I put a lot of faith into the idea that decent incomes for the working class would solve a lot of problems.

    • Replies: @jeff stryker
  351. @Iris

    You belong to a species of classy gentlemen, Jacques.

    Je t’aime aussi, Iris, but I’m just the Bumpkin of Unz! 😉

    Hey, what do you think of those photos supposedly from the moon showing the Earth in the background? I think the Earth looks way too small. It looks even smaller than the moon does from Earth, and that perplexes a dummy like me.

    • Replies: @Iris
  352. @Cyrano

    As much as I don’t have respect for western governments, I don’t think that they are foolish enough to take such chances.

    They took much bigger chances with the world wars (pulling ’em off even in the face of severe criticism), 9/11, and many other things and they’ve gotten away with all of it so far!

    … it will make them look like such fools that they will be the laughing stock of history.

    As far as many of us are concerned, they already are. Consider, for instance, what degenerates consistently run for the “prezudensy,” and just look at what prevails. It’s even more laughable to realize that they usually occupy the office for consecutive terms. If that’s not a joke, I can’t imagine what would be.

    • Agree: Olivier1973
  353. @jeff stryker

    We saw this in South Africa. The wealthy and educated SA whites abandoned Boer blue-collar people to the mercy of the ANC. The same thing will happen in the US.

    According to Douglas Reed, something similar happened to the Germans as well, and he seems quite credible to me. The story is so often repeated that you’d think more folks would have figured most of it out by now. It should be common knowledge.

  354. @iffen

    Australia is probably a nicer country overall because minimum wage is higher.

    My brother, an urban planner, moved from California back East because he could not afford a private school.

    My father, a research scientist, could afford to send me to Catholic school. But I heard horror stories from junior high friends. Utter horror stories. My grades were good enough to get a scholarship to a private high school. This was mostly because by high school the blacks are 18 or 19 year old career criminals by then. It is not uncommon for blacks in high school to go to prison for murder in the 10th or 11th grade.

    The ruling elite, none of whom would ever send their children to public schools, don’t care what happens to poorer whites.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  355. @jeff stryker

    Because Canada and Australia don’t have Hollywood (or the Pentagon).

    • Replies: @jeff stryker
  356. The ruling elite, none of whom would ever send their children to public schools, don’t care what happens to poorer whites.

    Of course. And why that needs to be stated (and it obviously does) is something that annoys the bleep outta me. Obviously the babies need to believe in some big daddy who’ll protect them or some big mama who cares for them all their lives, or some messiah who luvs them.

    Now returning to the subject of hoaxes it seems that most of those who believe in the official versions to the Moon Landing theory, intelligent as they may be, are engaging in group think, and as Le Bon tells us, crowds are in a state of expectant attention which renders suggestion easy.

    Here’s more.

    The first perversion of the truth effected by one of the individuals of the gathering is the starting-point of the contagious suggestion… By dint of suggestion and contagion the miracle signalised by a single person was immediately accepted by all. Such is always the mechanism of the collective hallucinations so frequent in history — hallucinations which seem to have all the recognised characteristics of authenticity, since they are phenomena observed by thousands of persons.

    To combat what precedes, the mental quality of the individuals composing a crowd must not be brought into consideration. This quality is without importance. From the moment that they form part of a crowd the learned man and the ignoramus are equally incapable of observation.

    -Le Bon, The Crowd, A Study of the Popular Mind, (1896) pp. 24-25.

    • Replies: @apollonian
    , @jeff stryker
  357. All progressive visions are derived from Jewish messianism.

    Though there may be some truth to the Moldbuggian argument as well…

    With respect to the Apollo denialism — I’m not sure that combining the “Making it to the Moon with 1960s technology was impossible! They would have crashed and burned!” argument with the “But when a fatal accident DID occur, it MUST have been intentional — because NASA’s technology was FLAWLESS!” one is rhetorically effective. Just sayin’.

    no crater on the lunar surface from the landing engine

    Implicit assumption — there “should” have been a crater. Let’s take a look at the facts, rather than just vague scifi-derived impressions of what “should” happen:

    1. What was the maximum rated thrust of the descent stage engine?
    10,500 lbs.
    Maximum operational thrust (100% throttle) = 10,000 lbs.

    2. Throttle during final stages of descent — 30-40%, or:
    3000 – 4000 lbs.

    3. Diameter of the bell/ nozzle of the engine:
    54 inches — or an area of about 2290 square inches.

    So:
    At 40% thottle, what was the maximum pressure in psi at the outlet of the bell (it would decrease with distance as the plume spreads out)?
    4000/ 2290 = maximum over pressure of about 1.75 psi.

    As a check on that — the fully loaded lunar module had a mass of 15,148 kg fully loaded. Descent stage fuel made up 8,285 kg of that mass. At landing, 320 kg of descent stage propellants remained. This means at touchdown the lunar module had lost 7965 kg of its initial mass. 15,148 – 7965 = mass at landing of 7183 kg. With Earth gravity, that’s 15,804 lbs — or 2634 lbs on the Moon (1/6 Earth gravity).
    So it would take 2634 lbs of thrust for the lander to hover, or to descend at a constant rate.
    2634/ 2290 = 1.15 psi

    So maximum overpressure exerted on the Moon’s surface during the landing would be somewhere in the range of 1.15 – 1.8 psi, assuming they applied throttle all the way down (the lander was actually supposed to free-fall the last few feet with the engine shut off).

    What was the composition of the lunar surface beneath the lander?

    Why would you expect this combination to result in a crater?

    • Replies: @utu
  358. @Rurik

    Good points. Now let’s compare that to the attacks on the moon missions.

    Can you name a single person who has been imprisoned or tortured for Apollo denialism?

    Or even one who has been targeted by the corporate media/ antifa complex, physically attacked by antifa mobs, fired from his job, etc. for his beliefs?

    Have Apollo denialist books been banned from Amazon?

    Are Apollo denialists banned from social media?

    The absence of this sort of reaction from ZOG strongly suggests that Apollo denialism is not viewed as a significant threat by TPTB.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @Olivier1973
    , @Justvisiting
  359. @Cowboy

    What do you expect the trajectory of dust to be on the Moon when it is disturbed, and why?

    Why does dust billow upwards on Earth?

    What it different about the surface of the Moon from that of the Earth, and how might this affect the behavior of dust?

    • Replies: @Cowboy
    , @Olivier1973
  360. @Cowboy

    When asked, he explained that several months back the Honeywell Math Processing Board somehow got messed up by the Nimitz radar

    Not ionizing radiation.

    So my question to you and Mike P is even if the Van Allen Belt didn’t fry the astronauts, have either of you evaluated the likelihood that some of the electronics, sensors or other components could have been fried by the Van Allen Belt or other radiation/em waves?

    1. GPS satellites orbit continuously in medium earth orbit (in the upper Van Allen Belt) and they seem to function OK — with much more sensitive electronics than 1960s-era stuff.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Space_segment
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Comparison_satellite_navigation_orbits.svg

    2. As j2 noted, many satellites (and the ISS) pass through the South Atlantic Anomaly — part of the lower VAB — on a regular basis and manage to survive, though they may have to shut down some functions during the transit.

  361. j2 says:
    @Erebus

    “Perhaps with data transmission, as that would be digital.
    Apollo almost certainly used ordinary analogue for voice, and certainly for video. That would mean FM, AM, or maybe some form of PWM. ”

    Do you mean PCM, Pulse-coded modulation? It was invented long before 1969, it is analog-coded-digital, not digital, and it is one data coding for voice used in the old (digital) telephone network, but the military used other data encodings for voice. There are so many errors due to radiation that they had to use forward error correction for the frames (that means, not packets).

    • Replies: @Erebus
  362. utu says:
    @James Forrestal

    I can’t verify your numbers about fuel weight and usage at this point but I agree with the general approach of your argument (See comment #344). Last several feet LM was in a free fall. But before it its acceleration could have been significantly lower than Moon’s g=1.625 m/s2. This means that the downward acceleration of dust raised by the engine was larger than LM’s acceleration so it was likely that dust reached the ground before LM’s touchdown even if at some point it was above the elevation of LM.

    The no dust and no crater argument is really an emotive ‘ad incredible’ argument which is commonly used by the proponents of the Moon Landing Hoax. But the other side also uses a similar arguments. (See comment #318).

    • Replies: @Olivier1973
  363. apollonian says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    Unz’s Difficulties, Incompetence, Regarding Science, Proof, Evidence, And Fake “Manned Moon Landing”

    Ron Unz, Jew, tells us, in # 260, above:

    “All I see is a bunch of (often anonymous) non-scientists endlessly saying the Moon landing was “scientifically impossible” [THIS IS A LIE–WE JUST SAY THERE’S NO PROOF AND THAT IT’S HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE.]

    “…and also pointing to a bunch of Apollo photos that mean nothing to me.” [WELL, WITHOUT THE PHOTOS HOW MANY WOULD EVER HAVE BEEEELEEEEEEEEEEVED IN THE HOAX IN FIRST PLACE?–THE PHOTOS ARE SURELY THE VERY MOST IMPORTANT OF THE FAKED “EVIDENCE” FOR THE “MANNED MOON-LANDING.” SO THE COUNTLESS ANOMALIES WITHIN SUCH PHOTOS ARE EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT, WOULD THOU SAY?]

    Capped, bracketed notes above, by ap

    Thus Unz shows us and demonstrates just what a Jew he really is.

    Observe the Jew, Unz, saying, ” non-scientists,” regarding what he’s read fm these comments here, very much as if “scientist” and “science” are some mystic process and scientists are a species of his sort of rabbis, which rabbis are actually mystics themselves, in all truth.

    And don’t forget that as loyal Jew, Unz is sympathetic, necessarily, to the subjectivist view/understanding of reality–objective reality is actually quite foreign to Jews, including Unz, as we see. Jews are actually quite mystified about objective reality, hence TRUTH, hence science which they imagine is really quite mystic subject–as we see for Unz here.

    So Unz really has very little “leg” to standing upon when speaking about science or scientists.

    But most people in the West (and probably the whole world too) here understand science is a METHOD (a), and (b) that it involves logic–and this is probably as far as Unz, the Jew’s, knowledge of science goes, I’d venture–he’s actually quite weak upon the subject of science, and thus, typical Jew, he puffs-up about “non-scientists,” as if scientists MUST have credentials and if not, then they’re not really scientists, ho ho ho ho, brainless, pathetic, ignorant Jew, in all truth and fact.

    For science is simply the method of (a) INDUCTION (generalization) to conclusions, based upon observations, and then (b) the verification of these general conclusions checked by means of observation, often by elaborate means and instruments which we call by name of “experiment,” simply a fancy word for further observation, looking for specific signs or characteristics, by means of focusing observation upon details.

    Thus “scientists” seek verification (or not) of general propositions which propositions were inductive (generalization) conclusions based upon prior observation. Thus “science” is composed of induction and logic, for generalization and conclusion, and OBSERVATION, both prior to the induction, and after in the verification (experimental) stage of the process. And all this is soooo tremendously mysterious to Jews, as we see, including in the case of Unz.

    Note Unz tells us about his brief career in “theoretical physics,” but what happened, I can almost guarantee, is that Unz simply washed-out of the program because Jews have greatest difficulty, as we know, w. objective reality and TRUTH. Specifically, Unz, like all Jews, has great trouble w. understanding the OBJECTIVE reality–“the ‘truth’ is out there,” as Mulder would always say, in the “X-Files” TV shows.

    Reality is not merely what the mind/consciousness dictates, suckers–as in the Jew/Satanist/subjectivist view. Of course, whether reality is objective or subjective is the issue of metaphysics which considers basic principles.

    And the ultimate either-or regards objective (Aristotle) vs. subjective (Plato), neither of which can be proven–because there’s no premise that’s prior to those, objective or subjective–which Jews, like Unz, cannot and WILL NOT grasp or understand–which is why Unz washed-out of “theoretic physics,” though he surely doesn’t understand why or how–he probably just lost interest and decided to be more practical, to making money, and got into computer science, or whatever.

    Thus we see why/how Unz is SO INCOMPETENT regarding this manned moon-landing issue–he simply cannot grasp, in the first place, objective reality and the necessary implications–he doesn’t even really understand science, like typical Jew, imagining it’s some mystic process, hoh o ho ho ho ho ho–which needs and requires credentials in order for one to be considered a real “scientist” whose conclusions are thus deemed valid.

    Lacking this grasp of the necessary objective premise/assumption, it’s why Unz is sooooo pathetically dependent upon “experts” to tell him what and how to think–and why he washed-out of “theoretic physics.” And when one explains to the poor Jew such moronic dependence upon “experts” is KNOWN fallacy of “agumentum authoritatum” (argument fm authority), like typical Jew, he just ignores the problem as if it doesn’t exist, ho ho ho o ho ho ho. But after all, it’s his web-site, right?

    • Agree: MacNucc11
  364. @James Forrestal

    Some had unexpected accidents.

    Have Apollo denialist books been banned from Amazon?

    You are right:

    https://www.amazon.com/American-Moon-Massimo-Mazzucco/dp/B07HB4XC1S/ref=sr_1_2?crid=LPZIIM2NPGDP&keywords=massimo+mazzucco&qid=1555262396&s=gateway&sprefix=massimo+mazz%2Caps%2C291&sr=8-2

    And maybe we can discuss further when you will have viewed that video…

    And by reading the comments (all 5 stars), we can learn that one NASA retiree was not aware of what was going on exactly. So much for the fallacy by Mr Unz and others about the number of employees (they say 400’000!) in the knowledge of what was really happening.

    https://www.amazon.com/American-Moon-Massimo-Mazzucco/product-reviews/B07HB4XC1S/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_hist_5?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=five_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar

    Sorry, but the person in denial (the “denialist”), it is you. From one comment (link above):

    The big issue is, as with 9-11 truth, people are mostly in denial and fearful often and refuse to even look at the evidence. Some will smear you with insults because that’s easier…

    Sounds familiar?! See Mr Unz comments for instance. But he is not alone.

    Are Apollo denialists banned from social media?

    Yes. When M. Mazzucco documentary will be available on TV or any other “social media”, please, drop us a word. Until then: yes.

    • Replies: @James Forrestal
  365. @James Forrestal

    As long as the Spice continues to flow to NASA and the contractors TPTB have nothing to fear.

    If any member of Congress was an outspoken Apollo “denialist” they would almost certainly face the full wrath of everyone huddled within the Overton window (which includes all major media outlets, universities, and “big science”) as well as all of the “Intelligence” agencies. If a contractor manager or executive was an Apollo “denialist” immediate termination from their job would be their best case outcome.

    While some here don’t believe it, Apollo “denialists” aren’t _that_ crazy.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  366. Cowboy says:
    @James Forrestal

    Look at the picture, do you see the dust? How thick is the top layer of fine dust remaining after the rocket landing, I would say at least an inch, you? Do you see dust on the lander legs?

    Where would the dust go when blown away by thousands of pounds of hot gasses in a low gravity vacume? Exactly where the hot burned gasses would blow them, away from the lander. I would expect some of it to land hundreds of miles away, and nothing but scorched rock to be underneath the lander.

    But since we know it landed in a junk yard in Arizona, I would expect it to land on old cars, tampons, broken TV’s, who knows what else. But no dust would remain, and the lander would be coated with a fine layer.

    After 3 days in a diaper, where do think that wet green tube food shit would go besides running down your leg?

    • Agree: apollonian
    • Replies: @eah
    , @onebornfree
  367. @James Forrestal

    If you would have seen the Mazzucco documentary, you would have the answers for all your questions, plus the proof that the videos were taken on the Earth for exactly the reasons you are hinting by your questions.

    Congratulations. Beautiful autogoal.

    • Replies: @James Forrestal
  368. @utu

    Last several feet LM was in a free fall.

    How do you know that? Were you on the moon to see it happen only once?

    Or maybe it is what you have been told?

    In any case, I can bet that it never happened. And that it will not happen in the next 6 years at least.

    • Agree: apollonian
    • Troll: utu
  369. @Commentator Mike

    Furthermore, it is a well known fact that the melting (or rather the sublimation/evaporation) point/temperature of metals decreases with decreasing pressure and this is made use of in vacuum melting furnaces. So how do they melt metals in a vacuum furnace if the absence of air implies that it should be “cold”? Am I the only one here, but I don’t think the material science questions pertaining to space travel have been adequately answered? Am I supposed to buy what those selling vacuum furnaces are telling me or what NASA says?

    Exactly.
    And, as every informed person knows, this is precisely the mechanism that causes the rapid loss of GPS, geostationary, and other satellites to vaporization/ sublimation.
    Good point.

  370. apollonian says: • Website
    @jacques sheete

    People Must Understand Present Ruling Regime Of Satanism, Satanists, How And Why

    Jacques: “ruling elite” is (a) irrelevant (largely, anyway), and (b) are simply Jews and the suck-along traitors among whatever gentiles–they’re just a bunch of criminal scum, actually, creatures of that ruling criminal enterprise and monopoly at the top, the central-bank, legalized counterfeiting, which pumps out the practically endless fiat-currency, removing REAL MONEY, which is gold/silver and which protects the people.

    Most significant I’d say, are those brainless fools and suckers, the “Judeo-Christian” (JC–see Whtt.org and TruthTellers.org for expo) “evangelicals,” heretics (40 to 60 million strong, I understand) who support Israel and imagine Christ was “Jew.”

    These JC creatures stupidly overlook Pharisees and Jews (defined as followers of Pharisees, not same as Judeans, who lived in Palestine at the time, descended fm Israelites) were grafted OUT of the true Israel–only Christians now being true Israel, according to St. Paul, Romans.

    So what we most need now is REAL Christianity, re-vamped, re-energized, preaching the real Christianity, worship of TRUTH (= Christ, Gosp. JOHN 14:6), above all, Holy Spirit consisting of reason, by which to apprehend such truth, along w. HONESTY and integrity–against Jews and Satanism, which Satanism entails that “beeleeeeevin’” which pretends to concocting a false reality by means of insisting something is true, therefore it IS true.

    For “beeeleeeeeeevin’” doesn’t make something to be true–which heresy too many Christians accept nowadays, the stupid scum. In fact, note such “beeeeleeeeeevin’” is actually a form of Satanism by which these fools imagine they create reality–by means of “beeeleeeevin’” something into reality.

    And the Christian task really isn’t that difficult–for rallying of the people and Christian patriots against these satanic scum, murderers, and criminals who presently rule. First thing, I suspect, is to emphasize to the people how it is that Satanism rules (a), and (b) WHAT Satanism is, at root, simply extreme subjectivism, then (c) how Jews are Satanists and subjectivists and how they act so sublimely collectively and successfully by means of their organized, dedicated “group-think,” allowing the few to dominate the dis-organized many.

  371. Iris says:
    @jacques sheete

    I’m just the Bumpkin of Unz!

    A bumpkin you can never be, even trying hard, dear Jacques. You miss too many critical attributes, such as arrogance, ignorance and self-delusion.

    I am not knowledgeable on the Moon landing: I grew up believing it was true, apart from footage that got lost and had to be faked by Kubrick.

    NASA’s achievements can only really be judged by its peers, and that would be the USSR/Russia space agency.

    The head of Russia’s space agency Roscosmos, Dimitri Rogozin, wanting to send a mission to the Moon to check whether the Apollo missions really landed there is a strong hint that they are convinced it did not happen. It is typical of their sarcastic, contained sense of humour to understate key statements in their public declarations. Best.

    https://sputniknews.com/russia/201811241070096921-roscosmos-rogozin-moon-landing-joke/

  372. @Olivier1973

    Your admission that ZOG does not see Apollo denialists as a significant threat, and doesn’t even bother to ban them from Amazon, as they do with real political dissidents, is appreciated.

    Are Apollo denialists banned from social media?

    Yes. When M. Mazzucco documentary will be available on TV or any other “social media”, please, drop us a word.

    “They won’t broadcast my favorite video on network TV! Oy vey! Such poisecution!”

    Exactly how, in what passes for your “mind,” is TV = social media, hmm?

    Actual political dissidents are constantly banned from Twitter, Faceberg, etc. — no one cares about Apollo denialists.

    Many debunkers of the Holycost myth and other political dissidents have been imprisoned, physically attacked, targeted by the corporate media/ antifa complex, etc. — because they’re viewed as actual threats by ZOG. Give a single example of an Apollo denialist who has been treated in a similar fashion. You can’t — beause no one cares enough to do anything other than mock you.

    It’s also interesting to note what a strong affection the denialists have for videos — and their apparent aversion to any material in written form…

    • Agree: Ron Unz
    • Troll: Olivier1973
    • Replies: @utu
  373. @Olivier1973

    If you would have seen the Mazzucco documentary, you would have the answers for all your questions

    Your pathetic failure to answer the (very simple) questions that I posed is duly noted.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
    , @Olivier1973
  374. Cowboy says:
    @James Forrestal

    If you would have seen the Mazzucco documentary, you would have the answers for all your questions

    Your pathetic failure to answer the (very simple) questions that I posed is duly noted.

    After 3 days in a diaper, where do think that wet green tube food shit would go besides running down your leg?

    What happens to the shit, James? Put up or shut up.

  375. eah says:
    @Cowboy

    But no dust would remain, and the lander would be coated with a fine layer.

    Why would no “dust” remain? — eg if they had done practice landings on a beach, would you expect all the sand to be blown away? — do you think the “dust” is incompressible? — why is it not possible that some compressible “dust” would remain (just like sand on a beach), and the lander would rest on the remaining compressible “dust”?

    And if there is no air, why would there necessarily be “dust” on the landing pads? — in air, some “dust” may fall back on the pads after random, Brownian-like motion with gas molecules that make up air — but there is no air on the moon, and so nothing to affect the outward trajectory of the “dust”.

    I’m agnostic about the moon landings; I see no reason to believe they didn’t happen, but admit I have spent zero time looking into it (and have no plans to do so) — but I find some of your claims dubious, and some of your thinking to be less than rigorous.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
    , @Cowboy
  376. utu says:
    @James Forrestal

    It’s also interesting to note what a strong affection the denialists have for videos — and their apparent aversion to any material in written form…

    Film is the most manipulative form of ‘art’ or communication. This fact was know from the very beginning when the medium was invented.

    ‘Film for us is the most important of the arts’. – V.I. Lenin

    It was early recognized as a more powerful medium than the printed media. It is about telling stories that can be done almost seamlessly despite of logical and factual gaps that can be easily covered by diverting attention. Image is just a tool. If it was about image itself Jews would not dominate this industry. It is about stories, about weaving different haggadahs which are antithetical to rational inquiry and discourse developed by Western civilization as opposed to Jewish civilization. Plato was very negative about the theater.

    However, you should be fair because video and photographs are used by both sides or at least by the ‘stupid fractions’ on both sides in the Moon landing controversy.

    • Replies: @Olivier1973
  377. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Cowboy

    Cowboy says: “Do you see dust on the lander legs?

    No.

    But I do see duct tape on the back side at 1 to 2 O’clock, plus the tinfoil on the lander leg stops well short of the foot its supposed to join to, exposing something thin and white underneath. In fact, if you blow the image up a little, using any simple, basic image-viewer software [eg Apple “Preview”], there does not appear to be anything actually connecting the foot to the leg 🙂

    And so it goes……

    Regards, onebornfree

  378. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    Ron Unz says: ” That surely implies that many, many thousands of actual scientists must be able to see that as well, including most of the NASA employees at the time.Yet not a single one of them has ever come forward, and no scientist ever published a book or an article making that claim. “

    “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts” Richard Feynman

    “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth” Albert Einstein

    Regards, onebornfree

  379. @utu

    Film is the most manipulative form of ‘art’ or communication. This fact was know from the very beginning when the medium was invented.

    Thanks a lot for this very important remark!

    Now it is important to understand the difference between a film and a documentary.

    Films: Apollo “missions”.

    Documentaries: to show that the Apollo films (& photos) are fake by using the very material provided by NASA.

    And thanks again for the autogoal. Beautiful!

    • Agree: Mike P, apollonian
  380. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Justvisiting

    Justvisiting says: “As long as the Spice continues to flow to NASA and the contractors TPTB have nothing to fear.”

    And all that they apparently need to do to ensure that money continues to “flow” [ that is, extorted at the point of gun from taxpayers], is to stay in the public eye on a regular basis via new scams made “real” in their film studios, such as the fake “live” ISS feed, the fake Mars Rover footage, and the even more recent fake “Black Hole” photos.

    ‘Seems to me that the real “black hole” is NASA itself; its a black hole into which your money disappears .

    Same goes for the Pentagon.

    Of course, both of these criminally fraudulent agencies are mere subsets of an even larger, criminal “black hole” , that is, the entire federal government.

    And so it goes….

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @apollonian
  381. @James Forrestal

    Your own failure to answer the arguments presented in the Mazzucco documentary is even more pathetic and it will not be noted because I do not want to stoop to your level.

    Moreover I want to thank you for the goold laugh reading you troll one line “comment” as it shows that you failed to understand the meaning of my commentary which was the due answer to your autogoal questions.

    But now I am worrying, for it looks like you still do not understand how your questions are backfiring…

    What a pity! It will teach me not to tpts.

  382. onebornfree says: • Website
    @jeff stryker

    jeff stryker says: “Australia is probably a nicer country overall because minimum wage is higher. “

    Right! Unless, that is, you come to understand that minimum wage laws were deliberately designed by the early eugenicists to eliminate minorities, the poor, disabled etc. from being able to work and support themselves, thus ensuring their gradual “die off” and a smaller, supposedly superior quality gene pool:

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @jeff stryker
  383. apollonian says: • Website
    @onebornfree

    CYCLIC History: Only Way Things Work, Can Be Calculated, Observed

    Well, one-born-brainless (ho ho ho), the whole existential (practical) KEY-STONE to the entire corrupt system is the central-bank and fiat-currency system (see Mises.org; use their site search-engine for particular terms), literally legalized counterfeiting, and a MONOPOLY (necessarily), which issues nearly INFINITE fiat-currency which reduces the value of the currency units as the currency is constantly inflated (proliferated, replicated)–WHY is it the over-populated goons called “people” will NEVER figure this out?

    People are persuaded to wanting INFINITE (though fraudulent) currency, which kills them, rather than limited REAL money (commodity-based, hence gold/silver) which real money PROTECTS them fm gov. whim and fiat. But the morons can’t figure-out WHY fiat-currency fails, never have, and it seems never will.

    So people NEVER learn except by hard, lethal experience–after they SEE w. their own eyes they’re being killed by these oligarchs and satanic criminals. Scads and hordes of these over-populated, stupid scum, called “the people,” have to die and be slaughtered–as is happening before our very eyes–by means of poison vaccines and prescription drugs FORCED upon the people by politicians and judges, poison GMO foods, and other poison food additives, poison glyphosate herbicides, “geo-engineering” and “chem-trails,” “5G” electro-magnetic radiation, etc.

    So it’s determinist (absolute cause-effect; no perfectly “free” will), hence CYCLIC process of history and sociology (“Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler): the honest founders of a culture, like the Romans and Americans, grow and prosper by means of hard-fighting and honest work and production, BUT as they (the founders generation) build a WEALTHY economy, they foster corrupt following, inheritor generations who begin to moralize and virtue-signal, “socialism” being the all-time example for moralist-style EXCUSE/pretext for dictatorship, the society turning into EMPIRE, enslaving the people by various means, beginning w. the money-system, turning it into fiat-currency. Over-populated morons take the bait every time.

    Such is the way of the world, buddy, and there doesn’t seem to be a way of really, seriously changing this inexorable CYCLIC nature to things. We patriots can only watch and wait till opportune time to revolt and rebel–when the people get tired of being mass-murdered–and when enough of the stupid suckers have bitten proverbial “dust,” and been removed fm supporting the dictators and oppressors who become un-popular hence capable of being removed–which seems to be the ONLY way things happen.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  384. @Iris

    Thanks for the link!

    According to a June poll, nearly 57 percent of Russians believe that the “giant leap for mankind” was faked.

    In the UK, a 2016 poll showed that some 52 percent of Brits believed the landings never took place. According to a 2013 Pew Research Center survey, 7 percent of Americans doubt that their compatriots walked the Moon.

    That is very funny. Not an argument of course, only very funny. And only jealous people, I guess.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  385. Erebus says:
    @j2

    Do you mean PCM, Pulse-coded modulation? It was invented long before 1969, it is analog-coded-digital, not digital

    There’s no way they’d be able to transmit PCM video, and I doubt audio either. As they could have limited audio to 1 decade (say, 200Hz-2kHz) they might have got away with it, but video would have required far higher switching speeds than what I’d expect them to be able to achieve reliably, or without broadcasting more switching noise than signal.
    I don’t know how they’d go about embedding/stripping the FM analogue into/out of the signal, but it would have to be analogue all the way. Presumably it could be broadcast on a separate channel all on its own.

    At any rate, squabbling over the minutiae of photo anomalies, V-A Belts, signal transmissions, F1 engine thrust, etc misses the big picture. Yes, they’re all full of holes but that can’t prove a negative. Namely, NASA either broke all the normally accepted rules of a large science-engineering program and got away with it by heavy application of “American ingenuity and daring-do” (and got 1-in-a-billion lucky), or they realized sometime after 1965 that you can’t get there from here just as the Soviets did.

    Remember, in 1965 Soviet space technology was a full generation ahead. Unlike the Soviet program, which even the Soviet public knew little if anything about, the Americans had trumpeted their intentions to the world and so had boxed themselves into having to go big or go home. As they couldn’t do the former, and couldn’t afford the embarrassment of the latter, they did what they do best. Fake it.

    Boeing tried doing the same thing with the B737Max, but it came back to haunt them rather quickly. The fact that NASA’s hoax worked for decades is a testament to the strategic wisdom of doing what they did. They weren’t thinking 50-60 yrs down the road when the Exceptional Indispensabiliy they helped create would start breaking down and become vulnerable to the truth(s) of the matter.

    As noted upthread, the Russians and the Chinese are in a position to settle it. The Russians are openly joking about it, and it’s claimed (unreliably) that the Chinese are going to do something about it. However, whatever the truth is, it’s much less important to them than it is as a wild card in the geo-political Great Game now being played. We don’t know who holds that card, and we don’t know how, or even if they’ll play it.

    • Agree: Olivier1973
    • Replies: @j2
  386. One of my all-time favorite books is Carl Sagan’s “Demon Haunted World” in which among other wacky cultural smackdowns, he returned to Earth those thousands of Americans who claimed aliens abducted them.

    Moments ago, I read this terrific article by Linh Dinh. Inspired, I went to You Tube in order to learn what Carl Sagan thought about Apollo 11. As this great scientist spoke while displaying incredulous film on the 1969 Moon Walk, I found it hard to believe it was Carl Sagan doing the narrative.* As you please, linked below is the late-Carl Sagan talking.

    * In the end, Carl Sagan regained wits, and prophesized President t-Rump’s will to build a Space Military and “shoot the Moon.”

  387. onebornfree says: • Website
    @apollonian

    apollonian says: “the entire corrupt system is the central-bank and fiat-currency system (see Mises.org; use their site search-engine for particular terms), literally legalized counterfeiting, and a MONOPOLY (necessarily), “

    FYI, I’ve been reading/studying Mises and associated for 30 years, and am therefor well aware/cognizant of Mises.org., [ I’m a former member], Austrian monetary theory etc. etc., you presumptive fool.

    And why on earth would a jew-hater like yourself promote the writing of Ludwig Von Mises, fer chrissakes?

    You do realize that Von Mises was a jew, don’t you?

    P.S. I’m not your “buddy”.

    No regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @apollonian
  388. Erebus says:
    @gT

    … something Russia has never been able to do…

    … and something the Soviets concluded could not be done.

    NASA itself says that the technology ain’t there yet. On this point, both the Russians and the Chinese say the same thing. If Russia & China, jointly or separately, don’t have the technology you can bet your last dollar that the US doesn’t either. You can also bet your 2nd last dollar on it never having had it.

    When all 3 great space powers agree on something, one should listen and internalize what that something means. What it unmistakeably means is that if Apollo went to the moon, it went using technologies unknown.

    With that, we’re reduced to the same sort of speculations as we are about how the Pyramids were built, or how 1000T megaliths were moved in ancient times. The difference is that the Pyramids and transported 1000T megaliths undeniably exist, but evidence of the moon landings is inconclusive.

    If we don’t have the technology to go the moon now, conjuring it up in the past can’t be an argument for having gone there in the past. That’s akin to speculating about how the ancient Egyptians could have built Pyramids some ancient chronicler mentions, but we can’t find.

    Arguing that America went to the moon is not very far from arguing that miracles happen. It’s a religious discourse, and not technical. Jesus walked on water (when he wasn’t turning it into wine). American astronauts walked on the moon (when America’s Great Wurlitzer wasn’t turning it into moonshine). I can’t claim categorically that Jesus didn’t walk on water, but much less can I explain how he would have done it if he did. And I can’t whistle it either. So it is with the moon landings.

    While absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, it surely ain’t evidence of presence either.

  389. @Iris

    NASA’s achievements can only really be judged by its peers, and that would be the USSR/Russia space agency.

    The head of Russia’s space agency Roscosmos, Dimitri Rogozin, wanting to send a mission to the Moon to check whether the Apollo missions really landed there is a strong hint that they are convinced it did not happen

    Now that is an excellent point, Iris!

    Keep ’em coming!

    • Agree: ChuckOrloski
    • Replies: @Cowboy
  390. America “Family Guy” as Irreverence. A giant leap for satire, linked below?

  391. apollonian says: • Website

    Brainless One Thinks Jews Are Sooooo Cool; Humanity Merely Hum-Drum Cattle

    Brainless one: note Judaism IS Satanism, sucker–don’t thou realize Satanism begins w. simple philosophy of extreme subjectivism?–idea reality is mere product of mind/consciousness, making the subject to be God, the creator–Satanism by definition.

    Jews then are COLLECTIVISTIC subjectivists, most dedicated, motivated, organized, most effective “group-thinkers” giving them dominance/leadership over more isolated, individualistic gentile Satanist/subjectivists, all of the Satanists then, together, intimidating the rest of the population–as we see presently. Does it escape thou in thy stupidity that Jews/Israel ABSOLUTELY DOMINATE Jew S A (used to be USA)?

    And don’t thou realize real, true Christianity, worship of TRUTH (= Christ, Gosp. JOHN 14:6), above all, is NECESSARILY “anti-Semitic” (hating of Jews, Judaism, Satanism)?–against lies, lying, liars (see JOHN 8:44). For if one loves truth, shouldn’t one hate lies, lying, and liars, like Jews?

    And don’t thou realize Jews HAVE ALWAYS BEEN HATED by all humanity, of all races and cultures, all throughout history?–is it because Jews are truly recognized as the anti-human monsters and psychopaths they really are?–HOW is that humanity’s fault, sucker?

    And perhaps MOST OF ALL, thou hypocritical P.O.S., don’t thou realize Judaism and Jews HATE HUMANITY?–Jews holding humanity to being mere “goyim”–the Talmud preaching war against humanity–“the best of the gentiles, kill him!”–“Zohar” (“Cabala”) explicitly urging enslavement of gentiles, then their extermination.

    Brainless one: don’t thou think it’s high-time for a little sympathy on thy part for HUMANITY, hence good, honest, well-deserved anti-Semitism?–hence dear Christianity, the REAL thing? But I guess not enough gentiles have died yet, eh?–things haven’t gotten bad enough for folks, as Israel continues to bomb Syria and plot war w. Iran, eh? Ho ho ho ho ho

  392. @Linh Dinh

    Linh Dinh, I love your work and am proud to say I’m a huge Céline fan too. I’ve read most of his works. An amazing author.. I give you respect, or as they say props, for hooking up with Dr. Kevin Barrett.

  393. @Ron Unz

    I think my grand father was the original moon hoaxer. Let me relate the story. I was home on leave when the moon landing was happening. It was in the afternoon EST, and the entire family was gathered around the Television in the parlor of my parents home. When Armstrong was coming down the lunar landing ladder my grand father, a superstitious old Italian immigrant, jumped up from his seat and yelled: “that’s a bull sheet”. When I asked why he said that he looked at me funny and turned back at the television to say as if the astronauts could hear him; “if that’s a true prove it, throw a rock down”. It was one of the greatest scenes I’ve ever witnessed, and I’ll never forget it. By the way my father never said a word ever, about what his father said or the moon landings for that matter.
    I believed the official story for years but since 911, the Iraq war and George Bush’s WMD, O’Bummers lies and now this guy, hell what do we have that will stand the test of time other than their lies.

  394. apollonian says: • Website
    @onebornfree

    Subjectivism, Hence Satanism, Is The Very Problem, At Root

    So thou see, brainless one, I want to try to attempt to getting thou to thinking–real, serious thinking–not the fake pretending that thou do usually. Observe the world, the West, and Jew S A, used to be USA–what’s the cultural problem of the “ethos”?–SUBJECTIVISM, rampant. And this subjectivism ALWAYS begins in moralism and “virtue-signaling,” for example in socialism, simply dictatorship justified by moralism and virtue-signaling.

    And the subjectivism extends to the “trans-gender” movement, right?–golly, gee, but a male (born that way, anyway) can be a female if he only wants to be, right?

    And gee whiz, but isn’t it only “moral” for the white race, collectivistically, to pay-off the shit-colored races for past (imaginary, subjectivistic) “injustice”?

    And gee whiz, but why shouldn’t Jew S A allow the invasion of these enemy races, these enemies to gorge themselves upon the social-welfare system, all paid for by whitey–and anyone else who works and pays taxes?

    And by golly, but we need population-reduction, eh?–as of Agenda-21 and -2030 genocide.

    And we need INFINITE fiat-currency, right?–gold and silver are no good as they’re finite in amount.

    And why shouldn’t rich folk pay proportionally greater in taxes than the poor?–that’s only “just,” right?

    So thou see, brainless one, at root of things, the problem is this subjectivism of philosophy and psychology of the people. For thus “moralism” and “virtue-signaling” are elevated as principles of law and legislation by which we only need a majority of dumbshits, like thyself, who insist upon treating psychopaths and murderers like Jews as sacred-cows–for it isn’t “moral” to deny lies like holohoax, like it’s not “moral” to hate psychopathic mass-murderers and criminals like Jews, eh?

    Thus once thou sees this subjectivism as the problem it really is, THEN the only task is to spot the LEADERS of this subjectivism–the ultimate Satanists, most practical, most experienced in the craft–it is and was what Christianity, worship of TRUTH, hence objective reality, the necessary basis/foundation, was designed to do as protection of the people.

  395. j2 says:
    @Erebus

    No, I did not suggest they used PCM in this application, only that such techniques were known long before Apollo. There was digital coding, error codes, most of the normal basic stuff was invented and in use before 1969.

    I looked at the communications solution, it was Unified S-band, especially developed for Apollo
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_S-band

    It modulates voice, video and telemetry all to the same carrier via phase modulation. Telemetry is binary data and uses pseudorandom codewords that take some seconds to correlate (apparently it is Viterbi algorithm or something very similar: both sides know the code words and you match the received code word to your set of code words, it could also be a pseudorandom carrier, but I doubt that). Codewords and Viterbi is the most common form of forward error correction (FEC) and took at the processing power of that time just the time this page tells, some seconds. If all communication (voice, video, telemetry) was combined to a single carries, they could not play voice before correlating telemetry codewords. Probably so, the description on the wiki page is not so clear.

  396. @eah

    Very informative. I live in Texas which has no income tax, so most local government is financed by real estate taxes. But values are going thru the roof n forcing people out of their homes, resulting in communities that are highly stratified by income. This IMO is destroying formerly stable communities. The legislature can’t do anything about it since our Constitution prohibits an income tax. A growing view here is to cap ad valorem taxes even if it means impoverishing schools n services, but the pain isn’t enough yet for this to happen.

  397. I think we’re just going around in circles. If RU closed down this thread I think only Apollonian would complain. He sure likes to repeat himself and it’s tiring reading.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Disagree: apollonian
    • Replies: @apollonian
    , @Cowboy
  398. Cowboy says:
    @eah

    What causes the kinetic energy of the LEM to decrease to 0 as it approached the moon surface? Acceleration of hot gasses. They are accellerating away from the LEM down against the moons surface. A gigantic blow torch with miltiple thousands of tons of force blowing straight down onto a plain of dust, what do you think happens? The dust settles all back down in seconds? Really?

    Haven’t you even seen the plume from a lift off? In zero gravity and atmosphere there would be nothing to prevent the smoke and dust from blowing away for hundreds of miles.

    Why isn’t there dust on the lander legs, how can they be immaculate? Why dose Space-X bother with concrete landing pads and not land on a beach?

    Are ya daft, laddie?

  399. Cowboy says:
    @eah

    What causes the kinetic energy of the LEM to decrease to 0 as it approached the moon surface? Acceleration of hot gasses. They are accellerating away from the LEM down against the moons surface. A gigantic blow torch with miltiple thousands of tons of force blowing straight down onto a plain of dust, what do you think happens? The dust settles all back down in seconds? Really?

    Haven’t you even seen the plume from a lift off? In zero gravity and atmosphere there would be nothing to prevent the smoke and dust from blowing away for hundreds of miles.

    Why isn’t there dust on the lander legs, how can they be immaculate? Why dose Space-X bother with concrete landing pads and not land on a beach?

    Are ye daft, laddie?

  400. Cowboy says:
    @jacques sheete

    NASA’s achievements can only really be judged by its peers, and that would be the USSR/Russia space agency.

    If the US didn’t land on the moon, the Russians already know it and the Chinese too. Yet they haven’t said or done anything? Could it be that all 3, USSR, USA and Red China were created by mason’s and they had some kind of agreement?

    Should liars and criminals only be judged by their peers, other liars and criminals?

  401. @onebornfree

    ONE BORN FREE

    Well, the US did have unions. Of course the Irish and Jews and Italians took these over for their own nefarious ends. The Irish created the modern-day Democrat machine and then Jews assumed the mantle.

    The Italians, well, they just stole from the pension to build casinos and then buried Hoffa so he would not be able to give them up for it.

    Anyhow, I’m an American who has been to Australia and overall it is a better country.

  402. @Plato's Dream

    Well, Australians watched MAD MAX but did not believe it.

    Whereas when Americans watched LETHAL WEAPON 2 they genuinely believed that South African diplomats would sell heroin and shoot policemen in Los Angeles if Mandela was not elected.

    Just like Americans will believe that muggers who look like Jeff Goldblum will mug tough-looking Polish ex-miners who like Bronson.

    Why I don’t know.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  403. @jacques sheete

    “Men spinning around the earth and the young get on to the old like you lot”

    Says the old bum to Malcolm before he and his friends bash him in CLOCKWORK ORANGE.

  404. apollonian says: • Website
    @Commentator Mike

    Thou don’t have to read, suck-hole, ho ho ho ho ho, brainless puke

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  405. Erebus says:

    I did not suggest they used PCM in this application…

    Ok, read it wrong.

    Not that I think that this is a potentially fruitful path, but after following your Wiki link I found a NASA paper with a snapshot of their communications planning in 1965 that may be of interest.

    I skimmed it and came up with the following…
    Indeed, a unified S-Band signal was being proposed, and a pseudo-random code generator of 5.4 sec period, indicating that a full communication cycle would last significantly less than that.

    Except for television and emergency voice, there are two steps in the data demodulation. The first step is the recovery of the individual subcarriers. The second step is the demodulation of the individual subcarriers.

    and

    Television; The television signal, which was frequency modulated directly on the carrier enters the data demodulation circuitry via the 50-mc IF channel and is introduced to the main FM demodulator. The television signal is completely demodulated in this first modulation tracking loop.

    and

    Since the range code and television signals transmitted by the Apollo spacecraft both require large modulated bandwidths, and, in some instances, will be transmitted simultaneously, it was necessary to place them on separate carriers, using phase modulation for the first and frequency modulation for the second.

    To be sure, that may have changed later, but it appears to this layman that NASA was seriously considering straight analogue FM broadcast of TV signals from space.

    This apparently authoritative article suggests they stayed with the plan.

    The normal operating mode of an Apollo S-band downlink transmitter was PM. This mode provided for coherent Doppler tracking, uplink commands, downlink telemetry and two-way voice, but not television…The PM link margin simply could not provide an acceptable picture…

    and

    The answer… was wideband frequency modulation (WBFM)

    and now for something that raises an eyebrow…

    The Command Service Module carried separate FM and PM transmitters that could operate simultaneously, so voice and telemetry continued to be transmitted by PM while the video came down by FM. The Lunar Module only carried a single transmitter that could operate in either FM or PM, but not both.

    … leaving us wondering how we were able to both hear voice and watch video at the same time from the surface of the moon. Another miracle?

    Be that as it may, if that was how it actually worked, the power required would be substantial. Even sending the signal from the moon surface up to the CSM required FM transmission over a distance of at least ~110km (70 miles) assuming the CSM was dead overhead. The power consumed by the CSM in relaying that same WBFM analogue signal to Earth was many times larger, of course.

    Like I said, I doubt this is a path that can offer any big answers. As with so many of the other “lost technologies”, we have no real idea how they transmitted live TV to Earth.

    • Replies: @j2
  406. j2 says:
    @Erebus

    They had a limited bandwidth and analogue video picture takes lots of bandwidth, therefore the transmission delay (the time to send your transmission on the given signal rate) was rather large and they had to store it into a buffer and play it in playback mode, where they then synchronized voice, whether it was sent as a side channel to the picture, as in analog television, or sent interleaved on the same carrier.

    I agree, this path will probably not discover anything important. It is very possible, I would say certain, that communications from a far away distance through a noisy (radiation) channel would result to a delay before the voice and video are seen, and would explain why they talk about synchorization of comments and playback, and why somebody said Talk. It need not be a command from another channel. I would drop this as a strong evidence against Moon landings.

    About this possibility that three last Apollo missions landed in the Moon as unmanned missions and took there a robot, the lunar rover, it would explain why NASA made six trips to the Moon. Why was one cheating not enough? But if they only cheated the man in the Moon and explored the Moon with robots, then it would explain why to burn all that money and have all those people working, especially so that most of them thought they were landing on the Moon, and then they analyzed the results. There had to be some results to analyze. I suggest unmanned missions and at least one lunar module managed to return with stones and other results. (Then NASA would have been secretly replacing the false moon stones given to different places)

    • Replies: @Erebus
  407. @Mike P

    This actually is a breaktrough-it should be possible to find which landmass is in the upper right hand corner-if not a continent but really an island or a peninsula or whatever (vaguely it resembles South East Asia or Greece-Hell it might be the Thousand Islands in the Great Lakes) given the fact it is on a video that was suppossedly taken half way to the Moon and which is suppossed to show the entire globe, the out of scale perspective would be proof positive of a NEO instead of a translunar voyage

    • Replies: @Mike P
  408. @apollonian

    I knew I’d draw your wrath, ha, ha!

    Anyway, shouldn’t you be on a thread dealing with Jews? I did check that last article “Jewish Power Rolls Over Washington” and didn’t notice anything out of the ordinary in the comments section, except that it was conspicuous by your absence.

    And you sure do curse a little too much for a Christian.

    • Disagree: apollonian
    • Replies: @Cowboy
  409. Mike P says:
    @interested guy

    According to NASA, Apollo 11’s Earth orbit was about 100 miles up (and not 100 km, as I erroneously wrote in an earlier comment). To get a rough idea about the size of the patch of Earth surface shown in this picture, let’s assume that porthole was 1 foot across, and the camera was 5 feet away from it. Then, the visible patch of Earth would be 20 miles across, and the patch of land within it about 3-5 miles across. Considering that we don’t know its size exactly, and that its coastline is only partially visible, it will be difficult to identify unequivocally.

    Note, however, that the North Pole would be on land, which last time I checked was not the case … and also that in my above calculation I assumed the Earth to be flat 😉

    • Replies: @interested guy
  410. Cowboy says:
    @Commentator Mike

    apollonian is Ron Unz’s alter ego.

    Ron sets him lose so the rest of us JP realists can see how obnoxious it is when someone shows no restraint and talks about jews the way jews deserve to be talked to, instead of toning it down to the way people must talk if they want to be listened to.

    My big sin on this score is using the word “jew”. I dropped most of the expletives long ago, but I find it so tiring always trying to write around the 800 lb gorilla glowering in the middle of the room. There are only so many code words you can use, most are long, clumsy, and forced on us by the same people who want to strip us of the vocabulary we need to discuss their deception and greed.

    In short, I can tolerate apollonian much easier than say, Thomm.

    • Replies: @apollonian
    , @Johnny Rico
  411. Cowboy says:
    @Commentator Mike

    I disagree Mike. RU has said that no comments about the faked landings will be allowed on other threads, he implied that this thread was the moon hoax graveyard.

    As more information trickles in, I will add a comment or two. Perhaps others. Maybe even Ron Unz will find that petition with 200 kosher scientists signature saying the “landing” was a hoax.

    Since RU does provide this archiving service, whatever is written might well be visible only here in 10 or 20 years.

    So I think it should be kept open

  412. Cowboy says:
    @jacques sheete

    This one really hits the bullseye on the crashed lander carrying a “hebrew bible” and “holocaust testimony”:

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  413. @Mike P

    Even so, with some work it must be possible to identify the land mass however large or small it is because no two land masses, islands, or whatever are identical For instance, Argentina and India look alike and are even a bit similar in size (I think) but they are not identical The land mass in the Apollo video must exist somewhere It seems to be an island or a peninsula-how large it is? Who knows The bigger it is the easier it would be to find through the shape of the coastline/shoreline Yeah let’s say it is one of the Thousand Islands-in that case we have a lot of work to do

    A complicating factor (if it was a hoax) is that we do not know the orbital parameters of Apollo 11 when they took the video-like you said Apollo in Earth orbit was 100 miles up but for the purpose of a hoax it was likely placed in a much higher orbit

    • Replies: @Mike P
  414. Dube says:

    Over here at the rump discussion of the moon landing (rather than searching the long thread dedicated to the topic) I’ll just ask, what is the purpose of a “space suit?” Isn’t it to retain atmospheric pressure of 15 psi in the external vacuum? So the space suit would be filled out like a plump balloon. The old time science fiction illustrators knew about drawing special articulations at the knee and elbow joints to permit flexibility. But I’ve wondered why the tailoring for the lunar astronauts looks so casually draped.

    • Replies: @Erebus
    , @Cowboy
  415. Yo Linh Dinh!

    Fyi, from current drudgereport, linked below is my “Homeland” Media’s reminiscing on an ISIS (radicalized French gals) past attempt to take down the Paris Cathedral of Notre Dame.🙄

    Am very pleased how you acknowledged Jonathan Revusky’s noble words of support for Kevin Barrett’s great works, but minus the format’s “Benjamins,” er, so did I.

    On today’s start of Holy Week, & as always, I wish you peace and happiness.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/09/cell-of-french-women-radicalised-by-isis-behind-failed-notre-dame-attack

  416. Mike P says:
    @interested guy

    A complicating factor (if it was a hoax) is that we do not know the orbital parameters of Apollo 11 when they took the video-like you said Apollo in Earth orbit was 100 miles up but for the purpose of a hoax it was likely placed in a much higher orbit

    All Apollo missions reportedly had very similar orbital parameters, so I would start with those and see where that gets you. Maybe one can also make use of the time stamps in the video. Also, maybe something can be learned about the scale from the size distribution of the clouds in the picture, not about the specific location but about the scale of the visible part of the Earth surface.

    But to be honest I feel that identifying that island beyond doubt, from such a blurry and cloudy picture, will be difficult no matter what.

  417. Erebus says:
    @Dube

    Yes, they should look like the Michelin Man, even though they’d be inflated to about 4.3psi. Still enough to make movement difficult. “Jumping” would be a challenge, but “Golfing” looks like it would be another of Apollo’s miracles.

  418. Cowboy says:
    @Dube

    Very good point, Dube, thanks.

    @J2, Mike P: doesn’t this comment make sense? Shouldn’t those suits be as bloated as a dead pig?

    Here are some details on the space suit construction:

    • Agree: Mike P
    • Replies: @j2
  419. @Cowboy

    Aghh! Can’t we get away from it even on the Moon? Even in space?

  420. Peredur says:
    @Commentator Mike

    We constantly hear this argument implying that an object in a vacuum of space will not be heated up in the sun’s rays.

    I was not saying that an object in a vacuum will not be heated up by the sun’s rays. It will, in fact. My point in the sentence you quoted was about thermal conduction.

  421. MacNucc11 says:
    @Rev. Spooner

    In what way is Alex Jones discredited? He was pointing out who the deep state are long before it became common knowledge and finally acknowledged even among the deep state.

  422. apollonian says: • Website
    @Cowboy

    “Banality” Of Jew Problem?–Soon Enough It Will Get “REAL,” Serious, Even Critical, Urgent

    Well, WHY does it seem “obnoxious”?–and what is “IT”?–the “it” is HONESTY, a cardinal Christian virtue, absolutely necessary for apprehension of TRUTH = Christ (Gosp. JOHN 14:6). So if honesty is “obnoxious” to thou, whose problem is that? And that honesty is all one needs for getting attn. of other “honest” folks, sucker.

    For I think what thou really means about “being listened to” regards rather an engaged conversation which seems to be what thou craves most–thou needs a “sob-sister” to sob back to thou when thou complains how thou have been sooooo “mis-treated,” eh?–ho ho ho ho

    “Commentator” babbler says: “…you sure do curse a little too much for a Christian.” But I don’t think it was actual “cursing,” moron–“name-calling,” ho ho ho ho, would seem to be closer, and such “name-calling” is actually rather accurate characterization, closer to “good dose of honesty,” eh?

    And “commentator,” thou ought to consider WHAT actually is Christianity–it’s worship (reverence for, honoring of, etc.) TRUTH, sucker–get the clue, fool. Hence Christianity emphasizes the OBJECTIVE reality, fool. Christianity IS NOT at all laying-down for punks, bullies, and scum like Jews–it’s anti-Semitism (anti-lies and -lying; anti-Satanism–see Gosp. JOHN 8:44) if nothing else, and this along w. worship of, reverence for TRUTH, honesty, integrity, etc.–they go together, hatred of lies, hatred of Satanism, and hatred of Jews merely the reciprocal of love for truth; one goes w. the other.

    If thou doesn’t hate, one can’t love, and vice-versa–THIS IS HONESTY, fools–don’t thou get it? If thou don’t hate, HOW can thou be honest?–reciprocal emotions in varying degrees of emphasis/intensity.

    But I do take thy pt.–about getting “repetitious,” but so what?–thou are just ahead of the curve, though I’m sure others sense that sort of repetition too. And don’t forget: to be CONSISTENT requires working upon the same premises regardless any diff., specific subject-matter. Cultural/sociologic problem, (a) in general, is rampant (extreme) subjectivism of culture and people (as in men being women if they only want to)–(b) Satanism.

    SATANISM then is what makes the issue most lively for traditional Christians–and other religious too, long as they grasp that demonic element.

    (c) What then are Jews?–they’re Satanists (see Talmudical.blogspot.com, RevisionistReview.blogspot.com, and Come-and-hear.com for expo)–and Judaism is Satanism, merely a particular sort, but most practical, most practiced (see “Protocols of Learned Elders of Zion”) most experienced, and exerted in fact and reality by Jews (“Cabala”–as in “Zohar”)–especially the top Jews, along w. other top Satanists among gentiles, gentile Satanists ALWAYS deferring to Jews, the masters, the leaders, most experienced.

    (d) The pt. now is to understanding “Satanism” fm practical, strict philosophic pt. of view–it’s just extreme subjectivism, as I note. And then “Satanism” is understood for the serious, genuine problem it really is for all people, regardless how “educated,” young and old–we have a serious satanic society working, in effect–and Jews are at the very HEART of it all.

    Why/how do people resent Jews and Judaism?–because, even if they don’t or can’t put exact, precise “finger” on the problem, they sense there’s something genuinely satanic, satanistic about Jews/Judaism–something disgusting and putrid. But people don’t want to seem too mystic or hysterical about that or any subject, so they find they have to endure the hectoring by the Jews and their suck-alongs regarding the Jew-problem/-issue–like “one-born-brainless.”

    People stop just short of understanding Satanism in most philosophic, practical, clinical manner–it’s extreme subjectivism, and this subjectivist idea really does excellently to truly explain things, as regarding these infernal Jews–and it really does very well bear at least SOME “repetition.”

    Regardless, soon enough when folks are in real MISERY, even starving, then they’ll take the subject-matter regarding Jews and Satanism more seriously and not be so willing to laugh it off in ridicule–which is precisely what Jews want, don’t forget–making it merely “banal.”

  423. durd says:
    @utu

    What about the dust that was at a lower elevation than the LM that was created a few meters above the surface when the engine was cut off but was still in a trajectory opposite of the LM?

    And where does this dust come from when it clearly looks like no dust went anywhere and just stayed grounded under the LM?

    Except for the probe….it looks like it got fairly buried in dust…

  424. dfordoom says: • Website
    @jeff stryker

    Just like Americans will believe that muggers who look like Jeff Goldblum will mug tough-looking Polish ex-miners who like Bronson.

    Americans do seem to be even more gullible than non-Americans.

    I think it has a lot to do with the fact that the U.S. was founded on silly Enlightenment fantasies that it was going to be the one perfect society on the planet. When that turned sour Americans got crazy and started looking for enemies to blame.

  425. anon[153] • Disclaimer says:
    @jeff stryker

    i used to think you were an idiot

    lately i’m not so sure

  426. Erebus says:
    @j2

    I would drop this as a strong evidence against Moon landings.

    Yes. This field was probably America’s strongest suite at the time, and the technical issues were well understood. I doubt they’d need to fake it here, at least in the design-build stage.

    I find the photo evidence weak as well. There’s little doubt that the anomalies that appear in the photographic record strongly indicate that the photos were of an earthly provenance but that is all too easily explained by the fact that Apollo was as much, or more a PR endeavour as it was technological/scientific. If whatever photos could actually be taken on the moon were inadequate for Apollo’s PR purposes, I have little doubt it would be an SOP to “enhance” the record for marketing purposes. Brand America was being built, and we shouldn’t be surprised to see all the usual brand-building tricks being used to build it. That includes, of course, faking the whole thing but the photos aren’t the strongest argument for that.

    Anyway, I think there are far more compelling arguments to be made against human moon landings than either of these two.

    There had to be some results to analyze.

    What’s interesting is that the Chinese Yutu 1 probe found that the rocks in its area of exploration were completely different from everything else found to date. So different that one commenter wondered whether the Chinese went to the same moon.
    Here’s an article on that topic if you’re interested: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9880

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @Sparkon
  427. j2 says:
    @Cowboy

    I do not know of space suits, but with 21 layers, assuming the layers are sewed to each other, I would imagine that each layer can have a bit higher pressure and in this way gradually get to the desired pressure without having the suit puff up like a balloon. With one layer you would be correct, with 21 layers, hard to say. Astronauts and kosmonauts have been in the space and took a space walk, that is undisputed, so were their suits like balloons?

    • Replies: @Mike P
    , @Erebus
  428. @Cowboy

    You said tolerate. That’s funny. I like you.

  429. Mike P says:
    @j2

    I do not know of space suits, but with 21 layers, assuming the layers are sewed to each other, I would imagine that each layer can have a bit higher pressure …

    Most of the materials mentioned are simply not airtight to begin with, so cannot possibly contribute to containment. Secondly, even if they could in principle, there are obviously holes and gaps across them all over the place, so how would you deal with those leaks? Do you a 21-stage pressure controller that inflates and deflates each layer separately in order to maintain that delicate balance?

    NASA will probably enthusiastically endorse your idea, however.

    • Replies: @j2
  430. Iris says:
    @Erebus

    Here’s an article on that topic if you’re interested:

    Thanks so much, Erebus, very interesting article.

  431. j2 says:
    @Mike P

    Right, I learned most of my knowledge of men’s fashion from Westerns: You’re interested in men fashion? I saw three dusties like this, inside the three dusties were three men, inside the three men were three bullets. That’s a crazy story, for one, nobody but NASA uses dusties like this, secondly, NASA men do not get puffed up like balloons. That’s about what I know of that topic.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  432. Mike P says:
    @j2

    Right 😉 I assume we can let the matter rest, like them three dead cowboys.

  433. Mike P says:
    @Olivier1973

    Off topic, but since you are French and have a well-oiled brain: may I ask you – what is your take on the St. Sulpice and Notre Dame fires?

    • Replies: @Olivier1973
  434. Erebus says:
    @j2

    … assuming the layers are sewed to each other…

    I would assume they were laminated.

    My guess would be that there’s an “inner suit” that’s pressurized, and an “outer suit” that protects the inner against environmental hazards.

    Given that some of those materials have almost zero stretch, a relatively tight fitting inner suit could be workable. 4.3 psi (.29 bar) sounds low, but would make for rather stiff and difficult movement unless the joint sections were allowed to “balloon” a bit.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
  435. Sparkon says:
    @Erebus

    I find the photo evidence weak as well.

    Then why didn’t you step up like a man and respond directly to my comments about the photos at the time, rather than sniping from a distance now? Tell us, what did you find and where did you find it?

    But sure, that’s just a band-aid in the sky over the Earth. Lucy in the sky with band-aids. ‘Nothing to see here; move along.

    Do you find the 9/11 photo evidence “weak” as well? Do tell. I think Hezarkhani’s still frame of UA 175 seemingly penetrating WTC 2 with no reaction from plane or building to be the single piece of evidence that blows the official 9/11 myth to pieces.

    falso in uno, falsus in omnibus.

    No, we’re not in a court of law, but I do note with some amusement how you have been working hard here recently to trivialize the photo evidence as “minutiae,” while you haven’t made even one substantive argument about the photo evidence itself. Instead we get your eloquent pronouncements about “Brand America” which you seem to think is going to collapse any day, not that you are alone in that hope.

    Despite what you assert, the photo evidence is the best evidence we have because it’s all there in living color, and skilled photo-analysts have torn it apart.

    This page at Aulis has over 30 studies dealing mostly with the photographic evidence you’d like to trivialize or even dismiss:

    https://www.aulis.com/investigation1.htm

    Like Ron Unz and our glorious Moon Landing Skeptic, you’ve dodged all of my comments about the photos. Now you have summoned the courage to take pot shots from a safe distance by pooh poohing the photo evidence as “weak.” but still you have failed to present even a single argument or fact to support your claim. Yours is just argument by assertion, and those kinds of arguments are never convincing.

    Nullius in verba

    Eyes wide shut, Erebus, or something else?

    • Replies: @j2
  436. Erebus says:

    Eyes wide shut, Erebus, or something else?

    You apparently misread my comment.

    I said the photos were “of earthly provenance”, aka: fakes. I would expect them to be fakes whether they went to the moon or not, and so the fact that they are fakes doesn’t determine much for me.

    • Replies: @Olivier1973
  437. Mike P says:

    Given that some of those materials have almost zero stretch, a relatively tight fitting inner suit could be workable.

    Except for those diapers and urine bottles.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  438. j2 says:
    @Sparkon

    I do not think Erebus means that the photo evidence is not good evidence for showing that some photos are clearly forgeries and some are made, or minimum retouched , in a studio. This at least I accept, probably also Erebus. I looked at one photo you posted and I agree with you, a forgery:
    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2019/04/11/1407/

    The problem is that even if all photos are forgeries or made in a studio, it does not follow from that evidence that Americans did not put a man in the Moon. Assuming they did and all photos were destroyed, say by radiation, or they lost them (must be a terrible mess in NASA, you always lose important papers), as they lost the originals of the films, then they would have forged some to show to people, they could have had ready films to show in live television just in case things do not work. So, there is a way to deny the importance of this evidence, and one would like something that is still stronger, something that cannot be explained off.

    There are the following things that possibly are difficult to explain:
    1. One moon stone given by Armstrong is a forgery. Another stone, Big Bertha, is rather unbelievable that an astronaut found an Earth stone from all stones in the Moon.
    2. NASA did not plan radiation protection to the command module, though should have and could have. There is no explanation for it. All parts of a mission are always planned and threats that can be taken care of are being taken care of. All that was needed was to make the thinner parts of CM a bit thicker, it would not have even made the total heavier.
    3. NASA lost the originals of the films and seems to have lost the knowledge. That is not believable.
    4. Why did they need a Lunar Rover if the rover was not a robot of an unmanned mission? (I do not add the problem that the rover would not fit to the place as I do not know if this is so.)

    All of this is against the claim that astronauts were on the Moon, but none of it is against unmanned missions to the Moon, which remains as a possibility unless there is still better evidence. Indeed, the fact that NASA made six missions suggests that there were unmanned missions that landed to the Moon. One fake mission should have been enough, why to repeat a magic trick six times? So that something would finally go wrong and everybody would notice? It is easier to think that they did do something.

  439. Anonymous[344] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    Loperamide….and lots of it!!

  440. Cowboy says:
    @Erebus

    Here is some more moon dirt I dug up on the masonic moon costumes. From table 3 in this Nasa document, it was pressurized at 3.95 psi in normal mode, 3.7 in emergency mode. By my calculations using this table it would be equivalent to the pressure at over 10,000 m or about 33000 ft. Already at over 5000 m most people suffer altitude sickness, the new Chinese train over the Himalayas goes about this high and has oxygen pumped in, but I heard that it doesn’t help.

    As far as it being “laminated”, I think they were just sewn together.

    The inner suit was just for cooling/thermal control, not pressure control:

    Here is some interesting history on the construction of the Playtex Pantyhose suit:

    Each one of [the spacesuits] was completely handmade – this [was] an utterly couture garment,” de Monchaux told National Public Radio at the time his book was released. “Twenty-one layers of all different kinds of material hand sewn by women who came off the bra and girdle assembly lines.”

    “When you look at how Playtex put these suits together, it was this really kind of fabulous combination of, on the one hand some engineering expertise, but on the other hand, an enormous amount of informal knowledge,” remarked de Monchaux.

    If the story of a group of seamstresses and their unlikely supervisors — a TV repairman-turned-spacesuit engineer and a former sewing machine salesman-turned-executive — seems devoid of the type of drama needed for a movie

    I find it hilarious that these Masonic Moon Heroes were forced to wear space girdles. It fits so perfectly with the way Mason’s love to force their stooges to cross-dress.

    Speaking of Freemasonry, Playtex was owned by Dupont. This is clear from the shameless advertisements I posted above, with 21 layers of Dupont materials.

    Well Fritz Springmeyer claims in “Bloodlines of the Illuminati” that the Duponts are one of the principle Illuminati families.

    Pierre Samuel du Pont was a genius. Pierre’s mother taught him to be a medium with spirits, but early on Pierre had to deny it publicly. His father Samuel could not understand the boy’s genius, such as his ability at age 12 to translate Greek and Latin at sight.

    When Pierre’s mother died when he was 16, be no longer had a parent in the family who could understand him, and after getting one of his frequent beatings from his father, he ran away, and was spared near starvation by his Uncle Pierre de Monchantin. Initiatially, Pierre was a watchmaker, but within a short time he attracted the attention of several top Illuminati for his ability to write good tracts, and articles that advocated various economic and political views that they wanted promoted.

    Pierre Joined the Freemasons, and at some point was Illuminized, as most of the French lodges became. Although Pierre went through severe financial difficulties after the French Revolution, be regularly made payments to Masonic organizations in France. Besides being friends with all the famous Masons of the time, one Mason brother of his worthy of note is the French astronomer Lalande, who helped hide him during the revolution. Someone very powerful protected Pierre Samuel during the French Revolution, this is hinted at by historian Pierre Jolly, although Jolly never gives his protector’s name. I believe he was protected because DuPont was part of the Inner Satanic hierarchy. He was also protected by the daughter of Swiss financier Jacques Necker. This daughter was Madame Germalne de Staël. The Madame was a close friend of Pierre Samuel and she operated a famous salon/cathouse. Madame de Staël was nothing less than an intimate friend of St. Simon. She shared his occult revolutionary ideas. Henri de St. Simon was a student and friend of Jacques Rigomer-Bazin who was associated with the Inner circle of several occult-based revolutionary groups during Pierre du Pont’s time in France. St. Simon was the author of The New Christianity which foreshadowed the creation of international communism.

  441. Cowboy says:
    @j2

    – I think the number one knock-out punch for the moon hoax is trying to make us believe that the astronauts went for 3 or more days on end wearing adult huggies, which would have been full after 24 hours. Absolutely no way to scratch that crap-coated ass either. Correlated to this is how they changed in and out of that moon girdle in the confined space of Apollo:

    – I think the number two KO is the lunar lander, there are several major issues here
    — If they eliminated the helium tank in quadrant 1 to make room for the Dune Buggy, how did the engines work? What about the replacement batteries that were stored there?
    — That rover did not weigh 400 lbs or 460lbs (I have seen both) and the Saturn V didn’t have the capacity to carry it anyway
    — There are numerous photographs proving that the same rover was used on all 3 Masonic Chariot Landings.
    — How did it it magically assemble itself

    I could go on and on, but one more KO for me, and not for anyone else that I can see, is all the Masonic connections from beginning to end. Full Stack. I have elaborated on them enough, especially since everyone else acts like there is no such thing as Freemasonry.

    • Replies: @apollonian
  442. MacNucc11 says:
    @Steve Naidamast

    That is a pretty wild story but it would certainly explain a lot. Re-enacting the moon landings. Most likely the security guard thought nothing of it as he was probably told some weird reason for why they were doing it. I wonder do you know where it was that the astronauts were picked up in the ocean?

  443. MacNucc11 says:
    @j2

    I agree for the most part but I do not necessarily think it would be any harder to pull off this trick 6 times but yes, I agree, that is a little suspect. But then people did catch on right? Or at least that is what I am reading here lately. There have been books and films made of it. I guess it does make some sense to do it at least more than once. What they call doubling down and if you are going to have the chutzpah to do it then you better be all in. I have come up with a theory that the War of the Worlds broadcast that many took to be a real attack from Mars gave them the idea for a moon hoax. I think they realized the power of the electronic media of the time that people could be manipulated by believing everything coming from this new form of electronic media was true because you could see it. Not the case in WotW but radio transformed into television. More technical details were added to the moon hoax and the fact that a manned spaceship was legitimately put in orbit would explain a lot of the actual details that did occur so the whole thing did not need to be faked. I agree photos are suspect but not a deal killer, same lunar lander, stones, again suspect but possible to explain. I think as far as them losing the knowledge, I think it is more likely that they cannot fake it anymore if that is what they in fact did. Now there is the ability of independent verification of the landings that did not exist then. If it was faked, what they did then they could not do now. What would be a better explanation of why they have not gone back is that there appears to be no commercial advantage to the moon. But as far as I know there has been no one come out and say that which it seems would be a very obvious explanation.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  444. Sparkon says:
    @j2

    Sorry I was not able to read your fine comments at your blog until now. Often, I am plagued with a slow connection, and lose work here from time to time. Just now, my long reply to you got trashed probably because of my bad habit of keeping too many tabs open. At any rate, when I started to open your link earlier, it was hanging on your image and the sky looked crappy on it, so I closed the tab without reading your article. Thanks for your persistence in posting it again, as you have made many good points. I’m still wading through Phil Plait’s Bad Astronomy article.

    Yes, I agree the simplest and most straightforward explanation for the shadow anomaly on AS14-68-9487 is that it is a composite, which is a mechanical combination and arrangement of two or more elements from discrete images into a single, fake image. This kind of forgery can be done on transparencies, film, and/or hard copies (prints), usually working on big enlargements to do the editing, after which the image is re-photographed and sized back down to its original or at least desired dimensions.

    However, there are a number of ways to fake photos, including double exposures, models and miniatures, along with paste-ups and other combinations of all these techniques. Of course I exclude those CGI digital techniques we can do easily today, but which may not have been available in the late 1960s. However, it is conceivable that mainframe computers of the era had the muscle and the applications to do digital image editing, which makes it much easier for the photo faker to cover his tracks.

    It is also at least conceivable that some kind of creative but controlled studio lighting set-up might have been arranged, with many small soft lights used to create ambient lighting, This kind of lighting produces very soft shadows that are easily blown out with even slight overexposure, and can be overwhelmed by a more powerful studio light, either spot or flood, especially if the soft fill lights are overhead.

    However it was done, it’s difficult for me to accept that the plotters and photo fakers did not notice these shadow anomalies, and the images were allowed to pass. Still, most people have been fooled for a long time, so even with the shadow problems, the images were “good enough.”

    I have more, but rather than risk another painful loss, I will post this now. Thanks again.

    ps. I don’t disagree with Ron’s decision to close comments under Moon Landing Skeptic’s article as the page was taking a long time to load, when it would load at all.

    • Replies: @j2
  445. j2 says:
    @Sparkon

    Hi Sparkon, you seem to know photography. What do you think about the Buchenwald man photo? My analysis is in the MS Word file that is in a link referenced in this post
    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/11/01/is-the-standing-man-added-to-the-buchenwald-photo/

    Not being familiar with photographic techniques, I simply calculated geometry from perspective and concluded that the man’s upper and lower parts are in a conflicting position with respect to the pillar.
    Anyway, this photo also passed the checkers and it does look to me like a forgery.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  446. @Erebus

    “and so the fact that they are fakes doesn’t determine much for me.”

    At least you shall draw the logical conclusion: NASA is lying through its teeth.

    No step for man and a big lie for humanity.

  447. @Mike P

    Thanks for asking.

    Not much was said about the St Sulpice fire except that it was “likely” criminal, but to my knowledge no one was arrested (yet).

    About Notre Dame, I will wait the conclusions of the inquiry. So far it is said that at one early (but how early?) moment two distinct fires were seen.

    What is incredible for me is that for such an important restoration site apparently no security was organised 24/24 and 7/7.

    Two churches on fire in less than two months…

    • Replies: @Mike P
  448. @MacNucc11

    TPTB are not going to say there is no viable commercial use of the moon because they are too busy scamming the Congress and the public for NASA funding and private “investors” (aka suckers) on “commercial uses of the moon”:

    https://www.space.com/moon-mining-space-exploration-report.html

    More lucy and the football–commercial uses “any day now”….

    The European “Union” is running their scam as well.

    https://thehill.com/opinion/international/428004-european-space-agency-has-sights-set-on-mining-the-moon

    • Replies: @Olivier1973
  449. The problem is that even if all photos are forgeries or made in a studio, it does not follow from that evidence that Americans did not put a man in the Moon.

    It follows that NASA lied and is still lying.

    And if NASA lies, the burden of proof that anyone went to the moon is on their shoulders.

    Moreover there is enough evidence that no one went.

    My favourite: the flying saucepan and how it was lifted without propergols.

    By the way about cameras: what would be the temperature inside Hasselblad cameras when exposed to the sun on the moon? Of course nobody knows as nobody went. They had no cooling system, hadn’t they?

    Just wondering. Film does not like too extreme temperatures. Nor cosmic rays.

  450. Dube says:

    Returning to the theme of America as Religion, check out the Sistine Chapel of Norman Rockwell paintings (it pains to be so sardonic) on the astronauts and moon landing – e.g., search “Norman Rockwell’s Behind Apollo 11.” What need be more convincing?

    • Replies: @Cowboy
  451. I also looked at the shadow photo posted by Sparkon and agree that it must be photoforgery by NASA.

    Two light sources are not necessary. The one light source only needs to be not far from the scene. Like in a studio.

  452. @Justvisiting

    The European “Union” is running their scam as well.

    Scam is the right word. Money, money, money. All that for money. Well, of course the Apollo things showed that it is so easy to go to the moon and come back. 100% success in landing on the moon and returning to mother Earth. Sure they look for petrol on the moon, as there were forests as the petrified wood testifies. What a joke.

    I checked the date. No it was not published on 2019-04-01…

  453. apollonian says: • Website
    @Cowboy

    Importance Of Masons Pales In Comparison To Central-Bank Criminality

    Cowboy: thy info on the masons is actually so good and crushing that few could add anything to that info–I couldn’t–OF COURSE it’s all quite true, accurate, and TELLING, what more could be said?

    BUT none of it would work, for the dictatorship we now have and living under, WITHOUT that legalized counterfeiting instrument, the central-bank, issuing practically endless, infinite fiat-currency which fools and suckers think is such NEATO thing, the dumb fools and morons over-looking slight fact that the currency units are steadily, necessarily DE-VALUED into nothing as the evermore newer units flood into the economy, despoiling, defrauding, and impoverishing the poor, brainless, over-populated goons. See Mises.org for expo.

    Only REAL MONEY, commodity-backed/based, w. intrinsic value, like gold/silver protects the people. Real money DOESN’T NEED government; fiat-currency couldn’t exist without criminal gov. enforcing circulation, acceptance (“legal-tender” laws).

    So key to the utterly corrupt system as we now have is that basic criminal-enterprise, the central-bank of issue; free-masons and anyone else among the criminal network would be powerless without such “bank.” This fore-going sociologic analysis is why free-mason commentary is really irrelevant and much beside-the-pt., though of course it’s true they exist, and exist as nefarious, criminal secret society as thou indicate and describe. Jews themselves, foremost Satanists and psychopathic monsters would be fairly powerless without that central-banking.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
  454. Mike P says:
    @Olivier1973

    Thanks for your reply.

    You seem to be making an effort to give the “benefit of the doubt,” but honestly I myself can’t do that anymore – the number of fishy events, bad things happening in France in the last couple of years has been staggering.

    In my opinion, this is “Operation Gladio” all over again. Someone wants to punish and demoralise the French people, someone who is deeply hostile to France’s Christian history and rich cultural tradition, to truth, to human life itself. Someone is burning the bridges between themselves and the rest of mankind.

    Well, that is just my sense, I don’t mean to put words in your mouth. I have been enjoying your contributions here and hope you will continue.

    • Replies: @Olivier1973
  455. Erebus says:
    @j2

    2. NASA did not plan radiation protection to the command module, though should have and could have.

    NASA would have gotten radiation data from their lunar lander missions, so they’d know more or less what to expect. Of course, killing their astronauts from cancer 5-10 yrs after the mission wouldn’t have fazed an agency that cheerfully put them in a craft on the moon with only an untested (and untestable) rocket to get them off again.

    A point that could be added to your list, and needs more attention anyway, is that the lunar module’s ascent engine was a “single use” design, and could not be test-fired before it was installed. Each of the 6 ascents from the lunar surface were effectively that engine’s test firing, so they were 100% dependent on an untested/untestable system working perfectly to get them out of there.
    Given the state of American rocketry at the time, that means that either the astronauts had signed a death pact, or they didn’t go.

    Maybe that’s why they behaved so weirdly at the press conference afterwards. It was a failed suicide mission. [/sarc]

  456. Sparkon says:
    @j2

    I didn’t bother to hunt down any higher resolution version of that Buchenwald image. Even at the size you have on your blog, I can see a number of discrepancies. What follows is not comprehensive. Both of the standing man’s upper arms have unrealistic anatomy in their profiles, and there is additionally some obviously unrealistic mushiness along the outside of his left arm where it is flirting with the pole. As you note, there is something fishy about his entire geometrical relationship with the pole; he is standing very close to it, but is not quite oriented properly with the pole to be leaning against it.

    That long straight shadow seemingly cast by his rag suit’s hanging pant leg seems too sharp but lonely as it recedes into the distance, diverging slightly from the pole shadow, and generally you don’t want to dispense with perspective when seeking verisimilitude. But then the lonely shadow just abruptly stops before it gets to the bunk beds. If we can discern the pant leg’s shadow, then we should see also behind the man his own shadow, but I don’t see it. I do see an unexplained shadow high against the ceiling

    Most eyes are on the photographer, but standing man is gazing at something else. Why would he be the only one standing? The published photo without standing man is the slam dunk big flush finisher that sends this image flying into the Hall of Fake.

  457. Erebus says:
    @j2

    The problem is that even if all photos are forgeries or made in a studio, it does not follow from that evidence that Americans did not put a man in the Moon.

    That is the problem with proving a negative. The closest one can come to proving a negative is by showing that a positive claim expressing a necessary implication of the disputed fact is FALSE.

    So, while all, or almost all of the evidence we have for the moon landing is suspect, the best evidence we will ever be able to get proving beyond reasonable doubt that it didn’t happen is to show that a claim such as “The artefacts of Apollo’s moon expeditions remain at the landing sites” is false.

    Alas, I don’t think anybody here has the means to show that, but the Russians, Japanese and the Chinese do, and other countries soon will. The decision whether to expose the answer to the big question will be theirs, and that decision will likely be driven by political rather than scientific considerations.
    Until then, or until some other extraordinary evidence comes forward, all we can say is that the evidence presented in support of the Apollo moon missions falls far short of proving it beyond reasonable doubt. As we see, reasonable doubts abound.

    • Agree: Iris
    • Replies: @j2
  458. Cowboy says:
    @Dube

    Another great clue, thanks Dube:

    One glance and I knew Rockwell (Good Mason) was a Brother Craftsman. Sure enough:

    This painting with the Freemason standing on the checkerboard examining Jackson Pollack style chicken scratchings is loaded with meaning:

    Masonic Checkerboard/Duality The Masonic Checkerboard::
    The Masonic Checkerboard is one of the most important symbols to the Illuminati, for it is used in ritualistic ceremonies. This is used because black and white is a symbol for duality, or the base of consciousness. Base consciousness is important, because it is where all other states of mind arise. Personally, I like to think that checkerboards are also symbols for the celebrities being pawns.

    Check out this Masonic Norman Rockwell. I find it amazing how all this has been right there under my nose for well over 60 years…

    In 1977, Norman Rockwell received the highest civilian honor in the United States–the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He passed away in 1978, but he will long be remembered for his remarkable contribution to art, and for that unique view he shared so generously with America through his work.

    Bro. Norman Rockwell was a member of Red Mountain Lodge No. 63 F.& A.M., Arlington, Vermont.

    Judging by the number of paintings with checkerboards, Rockwell was a high level Mason. All this heavily stylized Americana paintings are also subliminal recruitment posters. People need to realize that Freemasons target highly talented people for recruitment. The Mickey Mouse clip above (by Walt Disney, 33 degree Mason) shows how this works. There are lots of checkerboards there too.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  459. Cowboy says:
    @apollonian

    BUT none of it would work, for the dictatorship we now have and living under, WITHOUT that legalized counterfeiting instrument, the central-bank, issuing practically endless, infinite fiat-currency

    I agree, and I know all about Mises and Rothbard. I even remember Max Keiser’s big debates about how Menger was the real Austrian and not Mises.

    This recent torching of Notre Dame likely is related to this ancient usury and money monopoly cult through the Nights Templar, yet another Masonic organization:

    The last Grand Master Jacques de Molay died executed by slow burning at the stake, in front of Notre Dame cathedral on March 18, 1314, one eyewitness says the Templar Grand Master asked God to take revenge on the people who had tormented him; and the curse worked indeed to perfection, killing all the interested parties, starting with King Philip IV of France known as Philip the Fair; who died on November 29th, 1314 at the age of 46. De Molay was indeed furious in the last moments of his life and used his magical powers, having been forced to make a confession against his will, and despite retracting this confession after, he was charged with heresy and burned at the stake like a vulgar criminal. A sad episode for the Church, and something modern Neo-Templar Organizations commemorated with great solemnity and the celebration of a mass on the 18th of March 2018, in Notre Dame cathedral, in Paris, during the 900 year anniversary of the foundation of the Order.

    Look at the Masonic checkerboard inside Notre Dame:

    • Replies: @apollonian
    , @Sparkon
  460. apollonian says: • Website
    @Cowboy

    Masons: Special Little Henchmen Of Jews, Central-Bankers

    So “Cowboy,” here’s how I’d analyze the philosophic implications of Masonry. As I’m sure thou knows, masonry attempts to conflate and synthesize the religions and “supreme being”–which is absolutely contrary to Christianity which explicitly opposes Satanism and Judaism, Judaism merely a particular form/expression of Satanism, extreme subjectivism, Christianity upholding the objective principle, giving reality and meaning to TRUTH principle.

    Islam then is closer to Judaism, Islam emphasizing Command authority of God, to which one must be obedient and submissive–especially towards God’s “prophet” and spokesman, Muhammed.

    Note then the intellectual virtue of Christianity and Christian philosophy which is negated and devalued by the others.

    And we know fm former masons who were high-ranking how masonry is really anti-Christ in its ethics and treatment of humanity, especially non-masons–similar to how Jews treat and regard non-Jews.

    So masonry amounts, in the end, in mere kind of Satanism of its own (though in the end it’s all subjectivistic), and it’s no wonder it is so thoroughly controlled and manipulated by Jews. Historically, we know masonry was infiltrated by illuminati of “Spartacus” Weishaupt, and exploited by Frederick the Great of Prussia, for financial reasons, no doubt, as well as other rulers, and not least of all by Edward VII of England who did best he could to CONSPIRE and start WWI especially against Germany, poor, dumb Germans not suspecting, so far as we know. See “Hidden History…,” by G. Docherty and J. Macgregor–they also have a web-site, http://www.ww1hiddenhistory.co.uk/ .

    It’s excellent thou follows-out and keeps notes as thou do for the astronauts and others of the space program. And it’s significant the Sandy hoax cops and state police of Conn. were/are all such staunch masons, Newtown being a particular head-quarters for masonry, I understand. Thou do great work, and as Christian I make it pt. to pay attn. to these masonic details–for masonry is very much alive and active in amazing, practical ways, many people don’t realize.

  461. @Cowboy

    OK, but where do you draw the line with this checkerboard stuff; i.e. it being Masonic or just a simple straightforward design? How about chess itself? And all the grandmasters? Chess masters or master Masons? Any connections there, between chess and Masonry? Or just a coincidence?

    • Replies: @apollonian
    , @Cowboy
  462. apollonian says: • Website
    @Commentator Mike

    Masonry: Avenue Of Satanism/Subjectivism

    I submit one would have to judge by “fruits,” as for anything else. As avid chess-player and fan myself, I can assure that the checkerboard design is absolutely meaningless except as a condition of the movement of pieces, etc.

    Masonry means one “belongs” to the quasi-religion, under control of the higher-ups, and once one is “in,” one doesn’t get out–only way out is to become Christian which leads to decisive repudiation of such Satanism. One first joins masonry and participates for purpose of self-advancement–like anything else.

    Imagine the ignorance of masons who are persuaded Christianity, for one, can be conflated or synthesized along w. anti-thematic opposite, Judaism–or anything else–like Islam which is obedience for sake of obedience–to nothing, just because Mohammed supposedly said God said so, Mohammed given some special status, because Mohammed said so.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  463. Cowboy says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Notre Dame is a Catholic Church, and the Masons hated the Catholic Church, but De Molay and the Knights Templar were also deeply intermeshed in the construction, so I cannot say for sure there, but I would bet on it.

    When Norman Rockwell paints 3 masonic pictures with the subjects standing on a chessboard, then paints “Behind Apollo 11” with all subject looking away from the viewer, and then it turns out Rockwell was a mason, then there is no doubt.

    You have to understand that in all this esoteric “art”, whether music, painting, movies or anything else, is always telling multiple stories. The uninitiated will pick up something completely different (pornography and perversion) than the lower degrees understand (exploit the non-members to get ahead), while the the upper degrees (look how the idiots worship us even when we genocide them and ritually sacrifice their offspring).

    A high level freemason looking at those Rockwell paintings surely would pick up dozens of Masinic cues that would mean nothing to you and I. These types of images are filled with Masonic meaning.

    John Podesta’s social media, protected by password “password”, had this image of him which many have interpreted differenty:

    • Replies: @Cowboy
  464. @apollonian

    The Masonic pyramid is embedded in the general pyramid of society. My impression is that one cannot advance in whatever career in society unless one joins the lodge. What I mean is that if someone is successful or shows potential, as one climbs society’s ladder, sooner or later he will be approached to join a lodge, and that will present a crucial dilemma, and perhaps if one refuses he may find doors for further progress shut. Not all Masons are successful, I hear even taxi drivers, butlers, and porters can be masons, as I suppose they need their eyes and ears on the ground, but the higher up you go in society the more of them there are. I believe even the clergy are members.

    • Replies: @apollonian
  465. j2 says:
    @Erebus

    In a brief reading of Wikipedia’s list of this type of evidence:

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

    I could not spot anything that could differentiate between unmanned missions to the Moon from manned missions. In the last three missions there was the Lunar Rover. Assuming it is a robot, the tracks and even a robot placing a flag, do not prove that astronauts were there.

    There is Apollo 14 photo (by NASA, but OK) which is claimed to show astronaut footprints and Apollo 12 photo with some scratches that may be footprints. Apollo 12 was 1969, Soviets put a robot there 1970. I think it is possible that Apollo 12 could have put a more primitive robot there in 1969, so the tracks may not be astronaut footprints. The resolution is not sufficient to tell.

    What exactly you would accept as an artifact that proves that a human was on the Moon, rather than a robot? (As I remember from Get Smart, Americans had in the 1960s a robot Hymie who looked just like a human, at least in the television).

    • Replies: @Erebus
    , @Justvisiting
  466. Sparkon says:
    @Cowboy

    Very interesting and illuminating comments, Cowboy, but of course you mean the “Knights Templar.”

    The story of the Knights Templar and their occupation of and adventures in King Solomon’s Temple in 1118 becomes all the more interesting when the obvious parallels with 9/11 are noted.

    Wasn’t that some kind of Masonic spectacle on 9/11, or what?

    Well, whatever else one may say about Norman Rockwell, let’s at least concede that the Masons must have (had) much better taste in art than the CIA, which at the time was promoting Abstract Expressionism, best typified by the sotted splatters of Jackson Pollock, who managed to kill himself and a friend in a drunken car crash in 1956.

    Getting back to the Knights Templar and especially King Solomon’s Temple, I have laboriously transcribed (with my bolds) this excerpt from Most Dangerous Book in the World: 9/11 as Mass Ritual by S. K. Bain

    Salomon’s Temple

    Completed in 1987 and constructed with a trapezoidal design, the 47-story World Trade Center 7, situated directly beside the Twin Towers, was known as the Salomon Brothers building. Recalling from Chapter Three that the Twin Towers represented the Two Pillars of Freemasonry, Jachin and Boaz, it shouldn’t surprise you to learn (if you didn’t already know) that according to tradition these pillars were located on the porch of, you betcha, King Solomon’s Temple.

    Noted English scientist, mathematician and theologian Sir Isaac Newton studied and wrote extensively about the Temple of Salomon, dedicating an entire chapter in The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms to his observations regarding the temple. Newton was intrigued by the temple’s sacred geometry and believed that it was designed by King Solomon with divine guidance.

    Solomon’s Temple is intimately intertwined with the story of Hiram Abiff, who some consider to be the Freemason’s Messiah. According to Masonic legend, Hiram Abiff was a man of Tyre, the son of a widow, and the chief architect of King Solomon’s Temple. Abiff, Masonry teaches, was the only person on Earth who knew the secrets of a Master Mason, including the most important secret of all, the “Grand Masonic Word,” the ineffable name, the name of God. To make a long story short, Hiram was killed for refusing to reveal this word, and then brought up out of the grave and restored to life.

    There is a Hiram from Tyre mentioned in the Bible in connection with the construction of the Temple, but not as chief architect; scripture is actually quite clear that God himself was the designer and architect of the Temple. But that’s really neither here nor there, because the legend of Hiram Abiff is not based on an historical character but rather on the myth of the Egyptian Sun-god Osiris.
    […]
    According to the Bible, the Lord gave King David the very exact measurements and specifications for Solomon’s Temple, an idea that must have struck the fancy of those responsible for the design of WTC 7, because the building was a deceptively-simple yet powerful modern occult-Masonic construct. Its trapezoidal shape and 47 stories were an architectural embodiment of the 47th Problem of Euclid, more widely known as the Pythagorean Theorem.

    Now we’re talking about some real old time religion mumbo jumbo.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
  467. I’d like to add my name to this list, for there are way too many obvious lies in the official story, and the photographs are clearly fake.

    ignoranus, n.  Someone who is both stupid AND an asshole.

    Even with today’s cameras, with their compact sizes, large view finders and automatic focus, it’d be impossible to take so many perfectly framed and exposed photos in a row, without flops. Not one betrays even the slightest camera shake. Armstrong wasn’t so much the first man on the moon, as the first tripod.

    All of this was covered at the time, in popular publications that it is painfully obvious that none of the NASAniers have read.  One of the little things you don’t grasp is that the folks who did the mission design were (a) meticulous about details and had lots of opportunity to test concepts, and (b) WAY smarter than you to begin with.  Here’s some of that info it’s obvious you never even looked for:

    Exposure
    The cameras did not have any light metering or automatic exposure. Based on experimentation on earlier Apollo missions, exposure settings for the different kinds of expected lighting conditions were worked out in advance. The guidelines were printed for the astronauts on the top of the Hasselblad film magazines (shown below). The shutter speed was set to 1/250, and the f-stop recommendations were ƒ/5.6 for objects in shadow and ƒ/11 for objects in the sun. For some of the more important photographs, the astronauts utilized exposure bracketing, varying the exposures one stop up and/or down from the recommended setting, to ensure a good result.

    Focus
    The focusing system was similar to a lot of consumer compact cameras of the era. The f-stop was kept relatively high (the lowest being ƒ/5.6). Combined with the wide-angle lens (60 mm) this results in a relatively large depth of field (increasing with increasing f-stops). This meant the astronauts only had to get the focusing distance approximately right to get a sharp image. Instead of an infinitely variable focus ring, it was divided into three preset positions: near, medium and far. Although not extremely accurate, it did the job. I have an old Kodak compact camera with this system myself, and it works surprisingly well.

    Framing
    The 500 EL Data Cameras did not have a viewfinder, as the astronaut’s helmets restricted movement too much for it to be useful. Instead the lens was fitted with a simple sight that the astronauts used to point the camera in the right direction. This is of course not a very accurate method, so the astronauts were trained in pointing the camera all through the preparations for the mission. They would bring along cameras for simulations, take photographs and review them afterwards. The crew was even encouraged to bring along Hasselblad cameras on private trips to familiarize themselves with the equipment and perfect aiming the camera.

    In a passage sited on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, Apollo 12 astronauts Charles Conrad and Al Bean comments on the camera training:

    Conrad – “(…) One of the things was setting the camera deal; we had the three (focus) distances. And what we did was actually take pictures to calibrate ourselves. They developed that film in training to make sure we stood the right distance.”

    Bean – “We had to point that (chest-mounted) camera without a viewfinder. (But) we didn’t miss a (single) one on the Moon, I don’t think.”

    Conrad – “Yeah, and it was due to the training. We really worked hard at learning to estimate by eye what the camera settings had to be.”

    Bean – “The first ones (we took in training) weren’t very good. But on the Moon, they were all good. So we really had learned in training how to do it by using real film, having it developed, having it debriefed. I think that’s why the photography got better with each mission, in general. Because the photographers would impart the (experience gained on a mission) to the next crew and help them be better. So they did get better. And I thought the photography did too.”

    Now, how about apologizing to all the people you insulted in your ignorance?

  468. apollonian says: • Website
    @Commentator Mike

    Human Nature: Sinful, Self-Interested, Doomed To Warfare, Strife

    Well, now we’re getting into basic anthropology, sociology, and psychology. And of course humans are “sinners”; they conspire and form factions, etc., but we know fm history foremost criminals always want to get control of the money and money supply, moving to issuing substitute money and tokens, and then to fiat-currency which is potentially INFINITE in amount–only problem for them is the currency units become evermore devalued.

    Thus there’s the “class” at the top ruling the working/toilers class which bottom class always has to be large enough to keeping the top rulers comfortable–Marx’s theory, for one. Thus Jews would seem to having a fool-proof system–long as the workers don’t get “smart,” Jews keeping the goyim in-fighting amongst themselves.

    But there’s always problems, for example, it’s speculated top Jews, some of them, esp. the “leftist,” “atheist” -types, were rather blind-sided w. election of Trump who works for the “neo-con” element allied w. the Judeo-Christian (JC–see Whtt.org and TruthTellers.org for expo) hereticalists among “evangelicals.” But we note these “leftist” Jews never say anything against sacred Israel.

    Another anomaly is election of these Muzlims, like Omar Ilhan, who DOES criticize Israel, and the fatal thing for top rulers of Satanists and Jews is falling-out w. one another, there being “no honor among thieves”–which then is only chance for the goyim–even then, the currency system still has to collapse (as is actually now happening) before they’re in any real trouble.

    Regardless, even if humanity can remove and eliminate Judaism, the most successful, practical Satanism, sooner or later another gang of subjectivist criminals will arise featuring their “insider” gang of profiteers and scam-artists, fooling the over-populated masses of goons, suckers, weaklings, and inferiors. Life sucks, as Homer always taught.

  469. apollonian says: • Website
    @Mr. Rational

    Mr. shit-for-brains: problem is HOW do thou prove the manned moon-landing?–what’s the actual proof, sucker? So thou just want to take word of known liars, eh? Aren’t thou the real moron?

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  470. @Cowboy

    If the mooners manage to disprove one denier assertion, they have in no any fashion proved that it all wasn’t a hoax.

    This is the fallacy of argument from incredulity.

    If you set the shutter speed that high, sa 1/10000 sec, then you will see nothing but black where the lander is shaded. There would be no depth, all colors would be bleached out.

    If memory serves, lunar regolith has a reflectivity of about 11% in visible light.  The LEM was totally surrounded by landscape illuminated by unfiltered sunlight, brighter than ever reaches earth’s surface.  If you want to see what kind of lighting that gives you, all you have to do is aim your telescope at the moon where the Sun-moon-you angle is similar to what would be reflecting light onto the shaded parts of the LEM.  It’s going to be way brighter than black.

    You could actually do this test, you know.  You could sketch out the angles involved, haul out that ‘scope, and eyeball the reflected light from representative spots on ol’ Luna.  It’s obvious to me that you never will, because actually testing things to determine truth is not in your nature.  You have been raised on dogma and uncertainty gives you an allergic reaction.

    What we see is some kind of back lighting and lower shutter speeds with perfect focus.

    Shutter speed was fixed at 1/250 sec.  Focus was generally not a problem because of the f/5.6 and f/11 focal lengths used, and the cameras only had 3 focus markings anyway:  near, medium and far.  They weren’t trying to do photometry, so that was good enough.

    I think the mooners really need to get something fundamental into their brainwashed heads.

    You NASAniers need to understand that (a) the people who did the mission design had LOTS of time to test concepts, (b) they were WAY smarter and better educated than you to begin with, with the consequence that (c) what little you can understand or are willing to believe in no way restricted them.

    NASA had no affirmative action program at the time.  NASA was able to hire only the best, and did so.  If you’re measuring the Apollo personnel by the average clown you know or even yourself, you’re getting a wrong answer because you’re using a faulty yardstick.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
  471. apollonian says: • Website

    Moron Gives Moron Arguments For Morons, Sucking-Up To ZOG

    Shit-for-brains says,

    “If you’re measuring the Apollo personnel by the average clown you know or even yourself, you’re getting a wrong answer because you’re using a faulty yardstick.”

    This quote fm thou betrays thy idiocy, sucker–HOW would thou know any of this?–isn’t it obvious thou PRESUMES and “begs question”?–and thou can’t even spell “ignoramus,” sucker–what a moron.

    Again, question is straight-forward–WHAT is the proof of manned moon-landing?–just say what it is, fool–thou can’t because there is none, only proof is sense-perception. So thou must supply an inductive argument which begins to equate to sense-perceptory proof–as an archaeologist searches for signs of human presence–and there is NONE, zilch, zero, nada.

    And again, there are COUNTLESS anomalies for the story given by NASA–PLENTY of evidence for hoax, lies, lies, lies, lying, fraud, scam, sucker. Inductive evidence for NASA scam is over-whelming, everything considered, and thy idiot arguments don’t help thy case, sucking-up to known liars, fool.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  472. Cowboy says:
    @Sparkon

    Not really that old, we saw it again on 9/11.

    I think the plan was for the twin towers to represent Boaz and jachin, and that the “solomon building”, better known as Building 7, was supposed to have been hit by a third airliner, flight 97.

    Something went wrong, 97 missed its rendezvous, and Larry Silverstien said “Pull it” anyway.

    9/11 was a massive satanic ritual gone wrong. The Zionists got the Patriot act and Rabbi’s got a sacrifice to satan.

    The entire First World War was also one of these rituals too, and it was full of Masonic signalling. The Archdukes automobile had the license plate number A111 118, which was Masons secretly signaling their powers among themselves. They knew before the war even started exactly on what day it would end. That kind of power can get you to the moon.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  473. Cowboy says:
    @Mr. Rational

    ” (a) the people who did the mission design had LOTS of time to test concepts, (b) they were WAY smarter and better educated than you to begin with, with the consequence that (c) what little you can understand or are willing to believe in no way restricted them.”

    Have you ever noticed how freemasons love to make their silly stooges do ridiculous things?

    How about how Nasa dressed the “Astronauts” in Playtex Space Girdles, then sent then to the moon wearing Senior’s Huggies for day after day without having any grownups to changes their diapers. How embarrassing. What a great way to “bring back to earth” some masonic stooge that the entire planet treats as a hero even though he never left Nevada.

    But what I find even more ridiculous than these utterly absurd rituals like planting the Masonic flag on the moon that the “astronauts” were force to play along with, is the idiot Americans who will cling to any shard of the American Myth to the bitter end, rather than accept that he is P.T. Barnum’s greatest sucker.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  474. Cowboy says:
    @Mr. Rational

    Exposure
    The cameras did not have any light metering or automatic exposure. Based on experimentation on earlier Apollo missions, exposure settings for the different kinds of expected lighting conditions were worked out in advance. The guidelines were printed for the astronauts on the top of the Hasselblad film magazines (shown below).

    Focus
    The focusing system was similar to a lot of consumer compact cameras of the era. The f-stop was kept relatively high (the lowest being ƒ/5.6). Combined with the wide-angle lens (60 mm) this results in a relatively large depth of field (increasing with increasing f-stops). “

    So those high resolution perfectly shot moon “photos” were all performed using the same mechanism as a 1960’s Brownie, possibly a Kodak Instamatics. Who needs a Hasselblad!

    And just try setting your Body mounted haselblad wearing a giant helmet and these:

    If you’ll buy that then you’ll buy anything. Elon Musk has seats available for the next trip to the moon, I suggest you call him up.

    People have to realize that those ultra-sharp Kubrist directed photos were part of the psyop. They would have been impossible on the moon.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  475. @apollonian

    Mr. shit-for-brains:

    Immediate resort to insult and profanity.  Triggering confirmed.

    problem is HOW do thou prove the manned moon-landing?–what’s the actual proof, sucker?

    Because it was impossible to fake, that’s how.  Just one for-instance will do:  If you had the least bit of knowledge of basic Newtonian physics, you’d take one look at the hang time and slow speed of the kicked-up dust and know that there was no way that video could have been shot at normal speed on earth.  After you did the calculations, you’d know that you’d have to under-crank the playback by about 2.5x to get the required hang time.  That would require the purported actor in the suit to be moving 2.5x as fast.  Nobody is strong and fast enough to move so fast, especially while wearing such a bulky constume.  NOBODY.

    So thou just want to take word of known liars, eh? Aren’t thou the real moron?

    NASA may have been lying about a bunch of stuff.  They are not lying about putting men on the Moon, no matter how much you NASAniers need to believe otherwise.

    • Replies: @apollonian
  476. apollonian says: • Website
    @Mr. Rational

    Babbling Is Not Proof, Suckers

    Ho hoh oh oho, Mr. shit-for-brains tells us

    “…you’d take one look at the hang time and slow speed of the kicked-up dust and know that there was no way that video could have been shot at normal speed on earth. After you did the calculations, you’d know that you’d have to under-crank the playback by about 2.5x to get the required hang time. That would require the purported actor in the suit to be moving 2.5x as fast. Nobody is strong and fast enough to move so fast, especially while wearing such a bulky constume. NOBODY.”

    It doesn’t occur to thou this is just brainless babbling on thy part, sucker. Thou presumes to KNOW what it’s like on the moon–something thou couldn’t know, sucker, as it isn’t proven in first place–babbling then that it can’t be duplicated on earth, ho ho ho ho ho. Who do thou think thou fools, scum? And we ALREADY KNOW that the vids of the astronauts moving–supposedly on the moon–are actually just moving at normal, typical earth-time, sucker–they COULDN’T be on the moon where gravity is supposedly 6 times less. Try again, moron. Ho ho ho ho ho

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  477. Sparkon says:
    @Cowboy

    I think the plan was for the twin towers to represent Boaz and jachin, and that the “solomon building”, better known as Building 7, was supposed to have been hit by a third airliner, flight 97.

    You mean Flight 93, which was said to have crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, but was in fact last tracked from (the vicinity of) Toledo OH, to Ft. Wayne IN and on to near Champaign IL long after its reputed crash near Shanksville PA according to ACARS data from the aircraft.

    9:22 PIT (Pittsburgh)
    9:32 CAK (Canton/Akron)
    9:36 CLE (Cleveland)
    9:47 TOL (Toledo)
    9:51 FWY (Fort Wayne, IN)
    10:10 CMI (Champaign, IL)

    http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2009/09/united-airlines-tracked-different.html

    Officially, Flt. 93 crashed at 10:03

    “Let’s Roll!”

    Or was that a bagel? Pardon the bun. Whatever the case, records from his cell phone company obtained by the FBI show that Todd Beamer’s cell phone made 19 calls after Flt. 93’s alleged crash.

    On September 29, 2001, the FBI received detailed records from Verizon’s wireless subscriber office in Bedminster, NJ, that Todd Beamer’s cell phone made 19 outgoing calls after the alleged 10:03 AM crash time of Flight UA 93. This fact, along with the sixth one, indicates either that the man self-identified as Todd Beamer was not on UA 93, or Tod Beamer’s cell phone was not on the flight, or this flight did not crash.

    https://www.consensus911.org/point-pc-1/

    Hey, remember Nixon’s “Checkers Speech?” If any man had a checkered past, it was Tricky Dick. He said also:

    “The American people don’t believe anything until they see it on television.”

    To paraphrase Joseph Heller,

    There is only one catch, and that is Catch 9/11

    Well, that may not be very good, and I’m no Heller, but you should get the idea that, for some of us, 9/11 is a “litmus test.”

    So I take it Cowboy you accept the official story that two 767s crashed into the WTC on 9/11?

  478. Erebus says:
    @j2

    I could not spot anything that could differentiate between unmanned missions to the Moon from manned missions.

    Correct. I doubt they’d even have to be “missions to the moon” rather than “missions in the moon’s general direction”.

    What exactly you would accept as an artifact that proves that a human was on the Moon, rather than a robot?

    There’d be several levels of evidence which would yield corresponding levels of certainty. These would range from hi-res photos from low fly-by (say <10km) with a satellite, to exploration of a site by a lunar rover.
    Either could empirically disprove the landings simply by finding empty sites, but the latter would be able to look for detailed footprints and so could empirically verify that humans walked the moon.

    Using some of the latest imaging technologies, even a satellite would be able to discern footprints. Have a look at the “world’s biggest picture” to see just how extremely hi-res photos can be generated with even non-military technologies. Hint: try zooming in on something on the distant horizon.

    If it was Hymie, frankly, I’d almost be more impressed than if it was humans. I’d also expect the evidence to show him still sitting there on the rover, waiting to get picked up. Bringing him back to earth would be really something…

  479. @apollonian

    thou can’t even spell “ignoramus,” sucker–what a moron.

    Sez the clown who affects to use archaic forms, but neither knows that it is “canst not” nor that “ignoranus” is a Sniglet, specifically the style of humorous word made by adding, deleting or changing one letter in an existing word to make a neologism.  (Hint:  that makes you one.)

    This quote fm thou betrays thy idiocy, sucker–HOW would thou know any of this?–isn’t it obvious thou PRESUMES and “begs question”?

    I know this because (a) I have been fascinated by space stuff since Project Mercury, (b) I have read extensively on everything related, and (c) I have worked many of the rocket performance equations and verified that it was indeed possible to do using the methods claimed.  I managed this not because (d) I have an IQ probably 2+ SD higher than yours (which I do), but (e) doing such homework on one’s own was far from exceptional among the science literati up to about the mid-1970’s.

    You who have grown up ignorant and mis-educated look at these things and wonder how they ever could have been done, when bright youngsters did this sort of thing on slipsticks from about the day of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky until the triumph of the radical equalitarians in US universities poisoned public education.

    WHAT is the proof of manned moon-landing?

    The existence of rocks, film, laser reflectors, etc. that would have been impossible to fake at the time (perhaps even now), and the existence of the space vehicles required to produce them as claimed.  There is no other explanation for these things.

    Everything on your list of “debunkings” is mere proof that you NASAniers don’t understand what you’re being told.  Given that you’ve got a barely-above-average IQ, it’s not surprising that you can’t get over your misconceptions even when given explanations in plain language.  You strike me as someone who failed algebra, and can’t tell the difference between calculus and the notation of alchemy.

  480. @Cowboy

    Have you ever noticed how freemasons love to make their silly stooges do ridiculous things?

    Have you ever noticed how the stupid change the subject when they can’t deal with a direct response?

    How about how Nasa dressed the “Astronauts” in Playtex Space Girdles, then sent then to the moon wearing Senior’s Huggies for day after day without having any grownups to changes their diapers.

    The toilet facilities on Apollo were considerably more humiliating than that.  Apparently your “Playtex pants” are considerably younger, from the Shuttle era.  But that’s one more thing that you are simply too much of an ignoranus to bother to look up.

    what I find even more ridiculous than these utterly absurd rituals

    … SHOULD be that the entire world bought it at the time, including the Soviet Union.  Which had its own massive effort to try to beat the US; the N1 rocket was huge but too rushed and the Soviets lost too many rocket experts in foolish gestures and socialized medicine.

    But nobody questioned it, because there was no question that it was real.  Not even from the people who stood to profit most by refuting a fake.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
  481. apollonian says: • Website

    Fulminations Of Mr. Psycho Analyzed

    Mr. shit-for-brains (w. pretended “high IQ”) tells us now (notes by ap bracketed, capped),

    “The existence of rocks, film, laser reflectors, etc. that would have been impossible to fake at the time (perhaps even now), and the existence of the space vehicles required to produce them as claimed. There is no other explanation for these things. [THE VERY BEST THAT CAN BE SAID FOR THIS ARGUMENT IS IT “MIGHT” BE TRUE, DESPITE THE NUMEROUS ANOMALIES AND LIES–THE LYING AND ANOMALIES RATHER PROVING NONE OF IT (ALLEGED MANNED MOON-LANDING) HAPPENED. FOR EXAMPLE, HOW ARE “ROCKS” PROVEN TO BE FM MOON (A), AND (B) HOW IS IT PROVEN HUMANS WENT TO MOON TO GETTING THEM? FILM AND PHOTOS ARE FAKED, AND THAT’S PROVEN–AS NOTED PREVIOUSLY, THE FAKE VIDS OF ASTRONAUTS WALKING ON MOON DOES NOT REFLECT THE 1/6 GRAVITY ALLEGED OF MOON. AND “LASER REFLECTORS” ARE NOT PROVEN. NONE OF WHAT IS ALLEGED HERE IS PROOF–IT’S ONLY ALLEGATION. AND THE IDIOT ADMITS THERE’S NO OTHER EXPLANATION BUT FOR THESE IDIOT LIES AND LYING.]

    “Everything on your list of “debunkings” is mere proof that you NASAniers don’t understand what you’re being told. [DIPSHIT: DON’T THOU GET IT?–ALL THOU ARE SAYING IS THY LIES ARE TRUE, AND IF THOU DISAGREES THEN IT ONLY MEANS THOU DON’T UNDERSTAND, BRAINLESS MORON–IT ISN’T PROOF, SUCKER.]

    “Given that you’ve got a barely-above-average IQ, it’s not surprising that you can’t get over your misconceptions even when given explanations in plain language. [BUT “AVERAGE” IQ OUGHT TO BE ENOUGH TO GRASPING PROOF, SUCKER–WHAT THOU ARE SAYING IS THY LIES AREN’T SUFFICIENT BUT TO SOMEONE OF HIGHER “IQ.” “PLAIN LANGUAGE”?–THOU SIMPLY LIES AND PRESENTS ASSERTIONS AND DECLARATIONS, THEN INSISTS IF ONE DISAGREES IT’S “PROOF” IT’S BECAUSE OF LACK OF “IQ,” HO HOO HO HO.]

    “You strike me as someone who failed algebra, and can’t tell the difference between calculus and the notation of alchemy.” [HO HOO HO HO HO, NO SUCKER, ALL I DO IS SPEAK THE TRUTH–THOU HAVE NO PROOF BUT FOR FAKED PHOTOS AND VIDS, MERELY TAKING THE WORD OF KNOWN LIARS; THOU ARE THE FOOL AND THE SUCKER WHICH THOU REFUSES TO ADMIT.]

    We see presumptuous sucker like thyself puts lots of emphasis upon this “IQ” balderdash–which thou hardly understands obviously, thou thinking it impresses anyone aside fm thyself (and other presumptuous morons like thyself), ho ho ho ho ho. But shit-for-brains, “IQ” makes no diff. in a perfectly determined universe (in accord w. strict cause-effect, no perfectly “free” will)–it tells thou little, if anything, and gives thou no advantage, and only makes a stupid shit like thyself feel better (perhaps) to pretending as thou do to this moronic “IQ.” In fact, this moronic “IQ” fiction merely puffs thou up, eh?–to over-coming a pathetic inferiority-complex and pretending thou knows more or better than someone else, or than thou really does–as we see.

    Shit-for-brains says,

    “You who have grown up ignorant [SUCKER, HUMANS CAN’T KNOW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOWING–LOOK AT THYSELF, MORON. AND A BRAINLESS SUCKER LIKE THYSELF WHO SWALLOWS LIES LIKE THE MANNED MOON-LANDING IS HARDLY IN ANY POSITION TO JUDGE OTHERS, BUT GO AHEAD AND MAKE A FOOL OF THYSELF, PUNK, HO HO HO HO HO. BEST WE CAN DO IS TO DEVELOP PHILOSOPHY AND GENERAL SCIENCE BY WHICH WE CAN ANALYZE CRITICALLY AND JUDGE LIES AND PROPAGANDA, LEAVING IT THEN TO GENERAL REASONING AND OBSERVATION (WHICH OBSERVATION THOU ARE REALLY LACKING) TO SPOTTING THE FALLACIES AND ANOMALIES, INCLUDING THE INADEQUACY OF THY REASONING AND “EXPLANATION”–WHICH IS ABUNDANT REGARDING THE MANNED MOON-LANDING.]

    “…and mis-educated [HO HOO HO HO, LOOK WHO’S TALKING, SUCKER–THOU WANTS SOOOO DESPERATELY TO BEEELEEEEEEEEEEEEV THE MANNED MOON-LANDING HE’S WILLING TO SWALLOW ALL THE IDIOT LIES AND LYING OF KNOWN LIARS–PATHETIC.]

    “…look at these things and wonder how they ever could have been done, when bright youngsters [WHAT?–“BRIGHT YOUNGSTERS,” THOU SAY?–WHAT WOULD THOU KNOW ABOUT THAT?–HO HO HO HO HO]

    “…did this sort of thing on slipsticks from about the day of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky until the triumph of the radical equalitarians in US universities poisoned public education.” [YES, PERHAPS, SUCKER, AND FOR SURE, THOU WERE ONE OF THE WORST VICTIMS OF THE “POISONING,” WE SEE, IMAGINING NAME-DROPPING OF OLD “KONSTANTIN” IMPRESSES ANYONE, HO HO HO OHO.]

    So there thou are, moron–thy pretended “knowledge” is accessible and even comprehendible ONLY to thou, the typical psychotic who pretends he’s only human existing in the world–or the only one w. the imagined “IQ” to “knowing” what thou pretends. Aren’t thou happy and satisfied?–ho o ho ho ho hoh oho.

    But get this straight, scum: we humans, ordinary as we might be for non-existent “IQ” which thou are sooooo proud of (ho ho ho ho ho), presumptuous psychopath w. un-ending inferiority-complex as thou obviously are, are not going to swallow thy idiotic lies, thou brainless puke. And if thou think there’s real proof and evidence, thou have to say what it is, and it has to make sense if thou imagine anyone else should accept it as fact. What thou really are is just an elaborate liar, aside fm being obvious psychotic w. HUGE inferiority-complex, insisting upon thy idiot “IQ,” ho ho ho ho ho–thou are actually fun to dissecting and pinning-down for moronic pretension and posturing. Tell us more, punk, by all means, ho o ho ho ho ho

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Amon
    , @Mr. Rational
  482. @Mike P

    Thanks for your compliments!

    My efforts are directed to understand what is happening and what happened taking the facts into account. You could be right. For one I don’t buy that the fire could have started with a short-circuit. I don’t buy either that the accident is privileged. An inquiry shall start without any prejudice.

    Now what is the value of such videos (date? time?):

    https://ia801506.us.archive.org/10/items/g80WqiRdDeJnmJa_/g80WqiRdDeJnmJa_.mp4?_=1

    https://ia601407.us.archive.org/5/items/ubW1GFYdqlP1dME7/ubW1GFYdqlP1dME7.mp4?_=2

    https://ia601507.us.archive.org/18/items/MlCiobiIyZWSukUI/MlCiobiIyZWSukUI.mp4?_=3

    If it is a crime, who is the beneficiary? Here the answer would be more easy.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  483. Cowboy says:
    @Mr. Rational

    One must remember that back in the 1960’s the masonic mind control over the US was in many ways far more powerful than today. Back then JP wasn’t as total as today, but their control over the media and Hollywood was complete, in a day when US culture was completely malleable and the enthrallment to the new medium of AM Rock and Roll and TV was complete. People trusted the news, but they also trusted their zeitgeist heroes.

    One big hero of the era was Astronaut Tony Nelson of “I Dream of Jeanne” which came out in 1965. This series was just one small cog in a gigantic mind control operation, but it was an important one.

    In the opening episode, “The Lady in the Bottle”, Tony Nelson discovers Jeanne in a Masonic tower shaped Alladin’s lamp. In comment 328 I discussed how this old linked Mickey Mouse cartoon showed Mickey going through some kind of upside down initiation where in the end Mickey gets Minnie.
    In this Masonic premier episode of “I Dream of Jeanne” episode Major Nelson must do exactly the same thing as Mickey Mouse in order to get his Jeannie.

    The producers of the show, Screen Gems, are also responsible for a long string of subversive TV series. Barbara Eden, continually making provocative poses in her G-String Lingerie was the taboo subject of many school boy fantasies, including mine. The freemasons used Jew porn to help cover their fraud. Just like Shindlers List.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  484. @Mr. Rational

    Mr. “Rational”

    I want to thank you wholeheartedly for your comments. While reading them, I could not stop giggling! And as you know laughing is very good for health.

    Linh Dinh wrote:

    I’d like to add my name to this list, for there are way too many obvious lies in the official story, and the photographs are clearly fake.

    To which you commented:

    ignoranus, n. Someone who is both stupid AND an asshole.

    I would say that here it is necessary to be very careful, for such “comment” could backfire.

    For instance, when you write:

    Immediate resort to insult and profanity. Triggering confirmed.

    Something well documented here: do what I say, don’t do what I do.
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrisy

    Soviet Union […] had its own massive effort to try to beat the US.

    And it was successful. Even today.

    Because it was impossible to fake, that’s how.

    That is right. It was impossible to fake. They tried. They did not succeed.

    (a) meticulous about details and had lots of opportunity to test concepts,

    Yeeeeppppppppppp,
    (a) they tested moon landings with a flying saucepan and we could admire the results;
    (b) they tested the Van Allen Belts all right before going (and they would have been irradiated);
    (c) they tested direct reentry (and they would have benn fried).

    and (b) WAY smarter than you to begin with.

    So…..

    Immediate resort to insult and profanity. Triggering confirmed.

    slow speed of the kicked-up dust

    Hoho. This is just the opposite. Too bad. You know how pollen can travel far distances for instance, do you?

    The existence of rocks, film, laser reflectors, etc. that would have been impossible to fake at the time (perhaps even now),

    Rocks from Antarctica including a petrified wood… Do you know that the moon reflects the sun rays, do you? No need of a one square metre reflector. Another definition perhaps?
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gullibility#other-words

    and the existence of the space vehicles required to produce them as claimed.

    Hoho. Again the flying saucepan and one same “rover” appearing in 3 “missions”. Funny.

    There is no other explanation for these things.

    Another definition perhaps:
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imagination
    Lack of, in that case.

    I have an IQ probably 2+ SD higher than yours (which I do),

    And this is meant as an argument?
    Definitively a last definition:
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/modesty
    Lack of, of course.

    Someone clever has no need to brag about his intelligence. It would show in his comments.

    Thanks again for the laugh!

  485. Mike P says:
    @Olivier1973

    Now what is the value of such videos (date? time?):

    Pretty much zero nowadays – very blurry, could be as “real” as those jetliners being swallowed whole by the WTC towers.

  486. Redking says:
    @Ron Unz

    Let me correct this for you.

    If the story were true and promoted on a national TV network, why didn’t any of the former NASA employees come forward to express their agreement and immediately become unemployableand pariahs as a result

    I am used to being on the “wrong” side of these issues, such as when I doubted that there were any Iraqi WMD before Gulf War 2. The arguments make, Ron, are very familiar. “How could the Intelligence agencies be wrong about Iraqi WMD, and how come no one comes forward with the truth to become rich and famous?”. More recently I went through the same thing with the Russian collision conspiracy theory which tens or hundreds of millions of Americans believe really happened.

    Nothing is going to change the fact that we don’t have the technology to get to the moon now, and we didn’t have it in 1969. Your cognitive dissonance is showing, Ron.

    • Agree: Olivier1973
    • Replies: @apollonian
    , @Ron Unz
  487. apollonian says: • Website
    @Redking

    Unz: Chief Troll, Troll-Master For Trolling Goyim Society, Never Doubt

    It’s NOT “cognitive dissonance,” sucker. Don’t forget, Unz is Jew, and he beeeeleeeeeeevs in the Jew “project,” such as it is, Jews being historically “oppressed,” etc.–after all, they’re just “like everyone else.” And that’s what this web-site of his is really all about–to “normalize” Jews, pretending they really are “just like anyone else,” and gee whiz, but thou “can’t judge all of them by just one or a few, golly.”

    So Unz wants to ignore and overlook simple fact Judaism IS Satanism (i.e., extreme subjectivism) at root, mere particular sort, that’s all–the most successful variety that ever existed, the basis (as “Cabala” of “Zohar”) of any and all the others (varieties of Satanism) that may be presently active.

    So don’t forget or under-estimate the sublime cleverness of the site, the baited “hook” being all the ostensive “anti-Semitic” articles–BUT then there are the comments pages which are carefully manipulated, distorted, and CENSORED by Unz, who, like psychotic control-freak, checks practically EVERY entry before he selectively publishes–the purpose being to legitimizing Jews and their lies and lying w. all his Jewwy trolls he favors and features–AS IF his site is a TRAINING/exercise sort of camp/site for his Jew buddies and trolls he’s training by way of patronizing the goyim, observing what/how the goyim think and will say, what works against them best, etc.

    Unz genuinely, seriously beeeeleeeeeeeeevs these are the “best of times” for the Jews and hence all humanity, golly gee–just wonderful–so he’s pre-emptively prejudiced against any “conspiracy theories” which might expose or reflect badly against his cherished Jews, though he makes specific exceptions now, evidently, for holohoax and 9/11. Unz is TYPICAL Jew, never doubt–he’s just got an unusually clever “hook” for bait, as I note, for bringing in the goyim suckers.

  488. Amon says:
    @apollonian

    Your way of responding makes thou look like a retard. Ho ho ho ho ho ho!

    • Disagree: apollonian
  489. Ron Unz says:
    @Redking

    Let me correct this for you.

    If the story were true and promoted on a national TV network, why didn’t any of the former NASA employees come forward to express their agreement and immediately become unemployable and pariahs as a result

    Well, I see this whole silly debate is still going strong…

    Keep in mind that the big FoxTV network television show promoting a “Moon Hoax conspiracy” aired in 2001, more than three decades after the (alleged) Moon landing, and long after the end of the Apollo program and the severe downsizing of America’s space program. Presumably, many, many thousands of former Apollo employees had long since retired by then and anyway were certainly not worried about losing their long-vanished NASA jobs.

    So my question stands. Unless the true facts of the “scientifically impossible” 1969 Moon landing were somehow kept secret from almost all of NASA’s many thousands of top-quality space science employees, why did not a single one come forward to reveal the truth and immediately be made rich and famous by Rupert Murdoch and his eager TV henchmen?…

  490. apollonian says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    Unz Merely Confirms Already Verified Obvious, Well-Known Thesis

    One has “gotta love it”–for Unz’s confidence in word and assurances of known ZOG liars. Unz doesn’t know or care anything at all whatever about what proof or evidence is for the manned moon-landing; no, all he does is take word of known liars and their hirelings, the heck w. anything else, this along w. two lies, already noted: (a) that the opponents say it was “scientifically impossible” (all we say is there’s no proof/evidence), and (b) that another Jews-media group of liars, like FOX would, for some reason, expose their ZOG masters and co-conspirators, blithely ignoring (as usual) obvious fact Murdoch merely plays the “good-Jew, bad-Jew” game, phony “right” vs. phony “left.”

    And if one has ANY doubt about Unz’s and typical Jew contempt/hostility for goyim, just read or re-read Unz’s “Open Ltr to Alt-Right.”

  491. @Ron Unz

    why did not a single one come forward to reveal the truth

    The problem is that when one comes, you are not listening or more exactly you do not want to listen.

    • Agree: apollonian
  492. Cowboy says:

    This perfect moon shot was recently leaked from the archive of “lost” Nasa photographs:

    • LOL: Iris
    • Replies: @durd
  493. j2 says:
    @Ron Unz

    “So my question stands. Unless the true facts of the “scientifically impossible” 1969 Moon landing were somehow kept secret from almost all of NASA’s many thousands of top-quality space science employees, why did not a single one come forward to reveal the truth and immediately be made rich and famous by Rupert Murdoch and his eager TV henchmen?…”

    I looked for the evidence in both ways as far as the time allowed and what I wanted to use for this the rather improbable topic. It appears that there is no evidence that proves that Americans landed men in the Moon. There is also no proof that they did not, but there is reason for reasonable doubt in case somebody wants to doubt it, therefore the question is so far open. Here are my conclusions:
    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2019/04/19/my-final-conclusions-of-the-moon-hoax/

    You ask a question why did no NASA person make a witness statement claiming that NASA did not land a man on the Moon in case they did not. NASA personnel are clever people and understand that a statement one way or another way does not prove anything, and they cannot prove it to either direction, a conclusion that I derived much earlier but have only confirmed after looking at the topic for a longer time.

    There are people who make such witness statements. In Holocaust there have been many witnesses who claim what is in contradiction with basic arithmetics, e.g. an easily derivable upper bound for Jewish deaths in Auschwitz. Therefore witness statements have little value unless they are supported by strong evidence. I am not a bit surprised that clever people do not make unsupported claims. They do not want to associate with cheaters who do those things. Money and fame do not work that well: many people, especially serious scientists, are not so greedy for money and fame as to come to publicity with claims that they cannot prove and that can only be negative publicity for them.

    It is rather amazing that NASA cannot prove that it did put a man on the Moon, especially as it is partly because they “lost” relevant documents. Whether anybody should have come or not is certainly a very weak argument. These issues should be solved with convincing arguments, preferably scientific ones, and from hard sciences. Personally I have no clear opinion on this issue, it is open.

  494. durd says:
    @Cowboy

    There are no paw prints behind the cat! Nice try NASA.

    • LOL: Mike P, Kiel
    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    , @Erebus
  495. apollonian says: • Website
    @Amon

    Child-Like Moron Hasn’t Slightest Idea What Is “Evidence,” Much Less “Proof”

    “Amon” says,

    “Another cult like mentality versus cult like mentality… great.

    “No matter how much evidence is presented it will not be believed for it goes against the teaching of the cult.

    “The only way to win, is to not play”

    It’s not “playing,” fool–it’s matter of proving one’s thesis, regarding manned moon-landing, or not. Thou morons cannot prove anything and whatever “evidence” thou provide is questionable at best, much of it demonstrable fraud. So thou are NOT capable of any proof, and thou have no evidence but for evidence of fraud. Thou don’t even understand what consists of proof or evidence.

    Thou say: “[n]o matter how much evidence is presented….” But thou just presents crap, lies, and wishful thinking which all thou pretends is “evidence”–thou don’t even know what’s evidence or not–thou just throw up a lot of crap, like a child, hoping some of it will be accepted, thou poor child-like fool.

    “Proof” would be sense-perception of the event, which thou don’t have, SO thou must present an INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT, giving evidence, all of it then moving to conclusion that the evidence, considered in sum is persuasive, that must now be dis-proven–such is science. But when everything is considered we see thou have no evidence, just lies, wishful thinking, and fakery. In thy case, thou may not be lying, but thou are such child-like in intellect thou can’t discern the defects of thy so-called “evidence.” So the conclusion is thou are utterly lacking in evidence, much less any proof whatsoever.

    And it’s not “cult-like” to stand for reality, science, and truth to (a) demanding proof, which thou can’t do, and then (b) to note thou have no proof, sucker. So thou are the “cult” which merely beeeeleeeeeeeeeeeevs. Q.E.D.

    • Replies: @Amon
  496. @Cowboy

    So those high resolution perfectly shot moon “photos” were all performed using the same mechanism as a 1960’s Brownie

    No, they were done with Hasselblads with Karl Zeiss optics.  Simple controls do not mean low-quality stuff under the hood.

    just try setting your Body mounted haselblad wearing a giant helmet and these:

    The controls were modified for use with gloves.  If you’d bothered to look, you would have found this photo of an actual Apollo-model Hasselblad:

    Seriously, do you think the astronauts didn’t have PLENTY of practice working the camera controls wearing moon-suit gloves?  Do the films of astronauts doing space-walk training in swimming pools to simulate zero-G mean nothing to you?  These people work to make sure everything they can anticipate will go off correctly, and they get it right more often than not.

    If you’ll buy that then you’ll buy anything.

    Projection.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
  497. @apollonian

    t doesn’t occur to thou this is just brainless babbling on thy part, sucker.

    “Talk sense to a fool, and he calls you foolish.”  But here’s an example of what I’m talking about.  Go here and watch from about 2:39.  If you kick up sand here on Earth, it doesn’t travel nearly so far nor hang so long before coming back to the ground.  That’s because gravity here is 9.806 m/sec² give or take a few mm.  But on the moon, gravity is about 1.6 m/sec².  Since d=½at² the maximum altitude is more than twice as high and both the distance travelled horizontally and the time in flight are more than twice what they would be on Earth, even in a vacuum chamber.

    You can see the same thing only more so with stuff thrown up by the wheels of the moon buggies.  See this video at about 4:25.  The hang time of the spray off the rear wheels is about 3 seconds, with nothing remaining suspended as would happen in Earth’s atmosphere.  This proves (1) it was shot in vacuum and (2) under much lower gravity than on Earth.  So either the US shot the footage on the moon, or the US used some heretofore-unrevealed anti-gravity device that violates known physics to fake it instead.  If your money is on (2), tell us where this device is today.

    And if you can’t explain that, YOU are the sucker.

    Thou presumes to KNOW what it’s like on the moon

    Oh, FFS.  We can measure the size of the moon by its angular diameter and distance.  We have measured its mass by a host of means, starting with the tidal effect it has on Earth and extending to a host of details like the orbital period of the probes we’ve sent around it and direct measurements by things like robot probes we’ve landed on it, like the Surveyors and Soviet Luna landers.  You knew none of this until I brought it up; you’re literally asserting things from YOUR OWN ignorance.

    You. Are. Pathetic.

    we ALREADY KNOW that the vids of the astronauts moving–supposedly on the moon–are actually just moving at normal, typical earth-time, sucker–they COULDN’T be on the moon where gravity is supposedly 6 times less.

    So if they’re moving at normal speed, camera and playback at the same speed, explain why the debris thrown up falls so vastly slower than it would on Earth.

    Explain.  Here’s your equation:  d = ½at².  Show how the d and t work if a is supposedly still 9.81 m/sec².  Hint, ignoramus:  you don’t even understand the question.