Did we land on the moon?

[Roosh]

I first had doubts about the moon landing around 2015, but didn't come to a definitive conclusion. As the years went on, I was sympathetic to moon deniers because it was clear that those in power are lying about everything. If you catch someone in one lie, such as your wife, it's natural to evaluate other things they've stated to you as fact. I started to believe that it was more likely we didn't land on the moon than not.

I'm ready now to come out as a moon landing denier. This video sealed the deal for me:



Therefore, I don't believe we landed on the moon. It's okay if you don't agree with me, and I won't try to convince you otherwise. That said, if you want to participate in this thread, refrain from emotional attacks.

 

[wwtl]

I believe we currently do not land humans on the moon and don't have the technology to do so. That's all I need to know.

The problem with history is that the past doesn't exist (anymore), that's why it's the past. So everything about it is a renarration by humans, which is not distinguishable from fiction by principle.

Therefore the only history book I trust is the Bible, as it has been inspired by the Creator of the universe.

 

[antman333]

Yes but I enjoy the conspiracies. There's a bunch of solid arguments on both sides. I just find it hard to believe everyone would have kept their mouth shut who was involved if it was indeed staged.

 

[joseph15]

I'm leaning towards no, we didn't land on the moon but obviously we can't be certain. I do have a problem with people blindly trusting NASA and government(s) and jumping to their defense. In many parts of the world, you'd be considered a total moron to even question the legitimacy of the moon landing which is something that I have a huge problem with.

Also, it's hard to believe that we could safely send humans to the moon and bring them back in one piece during a time when humans hadn't even invented cell phones and were just scratching the surface with digital cameras.. And lastly, why hasn't a man been sent to the moon in like 50 years to capture some HD photos/videos? Because "we did it already and have nothing to prove?" I personally call BS.

 

[RDF]

The problem with history is that the past doesn't exist (anymore), that's why it's the past. So everything about it is a renarration by humans, which is not distinguishable from fiction by principle.

Therefore the only history book I trust is the Bible, as it has been inspired by the Creator of the universe.

^ That would be true if you're referring to ancient history. Analyzing Mesopotamia, Egypt, and other civilizations that existed thousands of years ago.

However, in the case of events such as the moon landing or 9/11, there are millions of people alive today who actually witnessed them. You don't need to rely on a history book or some geologist/architect flaunting his PhD. You just talk to somebody who saw it with their own two eyes.

I have living relatives who were involved in the Soviet space program when the US landed on the moon. Everybody in the Soviet Union was well aware that the mission was planned and were watching closely through telescopes. If it had failed and the US tried to pass it off as a success, they would have immediately called BS (after all, the two countries were bitter rivals, to put it lightly). But alas, it didn't fail.

 

[Thomas More]

I know engineers who were involved with the program, who I trust. I think the general information available about the program portrays a technical approach that is feasible. I've seen the left over Saturn V rockets.
The moon landing and other human space activity were made possible by the rocket technology developed for nuclear weapons. The cost of the program was accepted as a strategic effort, not purely exploration.

I'm sure there are details we don't know, but I'm satisfied the information that is available is believable.

 

[Ice]

Pretty exhaustive analysis here:

https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/

Way too much to summarize, but just a few points:

- currently no exiting shield against radiation
- spacesuits were not advanced enough to withstand extreme heat & cold (and radiation)
- moon lander way too small to fit in all the astronauts plus equipment plus moon buggy
- not enough space inside the moon lander to safely put on and off the space suit inside (space suits were full of space dust, they would have needed to be taken off in a separate chamber from the living & sleeping quarters)
- the photos on the moon were taken with a regular film camera from the 60ies: film would not withstand extreme heat & cold (and radiation)
- camera was mounted to the torso of the astronauts: i.e. they could not look through viewfinder. Photos from the moon are too well composed for this. Plus, camera had manual focus, it would have been impossible for astronauts to adjust focus correctly.
- since the moonlandings in the 60ies (as I can remember allegedly 6 successful landings within a span of 3 years) no other nation managed to send a human to the moon.
- the Nasa apparently has lost all the original data from the moon landings (video footage, black-box data from the spaceship, construction plans of the moon lander etc.)

etc.

 

[wwtl]

However, in the case of events such as the moon landing or 9/11, there are millions of people alive today who actually witnessed them. You don't need to rely on a history book or some geologist/architect flaunting his PhD. You just talk to somebody who saw it with their own two eyes.

Human eyewitness accounts are the most unreliable accounts there are. Every juror and judge knows this and acts accordingly.

In fact, if you have multiple eyewitnesses telling you the same story it's guaranteed to be forged.

 

[Caduceus]

I have living relatives who were involved in the Soviet space program when the US landed on the moon. Everybody in the Soviet Union was well aware that the mission was planned and were watching closely through telescopes. If it had failed and the US tried to pass it off as a success, they would have immediately called BS (after all, the two countries were bitter rivals, to put it lightly). But alas, it didn't fail.

You are assuming the soviets didn't falsify anything, when in reality the soviets were faking almost everything they published from when they got into power in 1917 .

Have you looked at the photos and videos of the soviets in space from the 1960s ? Looks even more fake than anything NASA ever showed to the world.

From the "first man in space" to orbit the earth in 1961, the soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin there is practicaly ZERO images actually in space...just a few grainy black & white close ups of his head allegedly in the spacecraft while in earth's orbit.

He mysteriously died at age 34 in a plane crash just 7 years after achieving world wide fame.





...And here is video footage from 1965 of soviet cosmonaut Alexey Leonov on the Voskhod 2 mission doing a "walk in space".
Does this look real to you ?




The soviets could not call BS on the "moon landings" because they had already faked a lot too.
Mutually assured public humiliation made both sides keep their mouth shut.



Famous examples of soviet fakery decades before spacefight:

 

[Long Haired Samson]

Let the Youtube video posting begin. This filmmaker argues that the technology to fake the landing live on TV with hours long video was impossible in 1969 since the requisite high speed video cameras did not exist in 1969. If this is true then the entire Moon conspiracy is DOA.

 

[Rush87]

I feel like it's probably false but I know very little on the topic. Answered I don't know.

 

[Caduceus]

I know engineers who were involved with the program, who I trust. I think the general information available about the program portrays a technical approach that is feasible. I've seen the left over Saturn V rockets.
The moon landing and other human space activity were made possible by the rocket technology developed for nuclear weapons. The cost of the program was accepted as a strategic effort, not purely exploration.

I'm sure there are details we don't know, but I'm satisfied the information that is available is believable.

To clarify what I think:
The huge rockets, the massive take off from the ground, and the rocket flying in the sky are all real.
The images you see after the rocket has left the normal human field of vision from the ground (such as videos from inside the cockpit and anything to do with space) are all faked.


Some people argue the rockets go up without any humans in them.
I'm undecided on that last theory.

 

[Eusebius]

I'm pretty sure some footage was faked. There has been deception. Once you enter into the realm of deliberate deception, with skill and resources behind it, it's impossible to know what the truth is. Likely the moon was landed on, but when, how many times, manned vs unmanned, I can't say.

Actually the thing that red-pilled me on NASA deception was the clear picture of the lemming on "Mars" that slipped through. The actual markings on the lemmings fur are visible which identifies it as a particular species which only lives in the high Canadian Arctic, precisely where the off-limits "Mars training base" is located.

 

[Cuchulainn2016]

Let the Youtube video posting begin. This filmmaker argues that the technology to fake the landing live on TV with hours long video was impossible in 1969 since the requisite high speed video cameras did not exist in 1969. If this is true then the entire Moon conspiracy is DOA.

Wait..... they didn't have the technology to make a fake film of the moon landings, but they did have the technology to build space rockets, put people on them, fire them at the moon, land on the moon, go for a walk, take off from the moon, and fly back to earth where they landed safely?

OK

 

[Tex Cruise]

There used to be a member here who could've given us inside information and first hand details, but unfortunately he is now banned.

 

[Eban]

Why does it matter if we did? It has nothing to do with your personal life. Let's say that it was faked - Now What? You feel smart because you figured it out? I think concerning yourself with this nonsense is pointless.

Am I wrong?

 

[MichaelWitcoff]

I believed in the moon landing a lot more before listening to a bunch of NASA “experts” provide their “reasons we haven’t gone back.” When you hear them say with a straight face that they “lost the technology” or “it would be too expensive to rebuild those machines,” the only normal reaction is doubt, and to me it says one of two things:

1. They’re lying and we never went there, or
2. We go back constantly for reasons they don’t want to reveal, and came up with a childish cover story to hide it

 

[Dr. Howard]

I like the james bond moon landing conspiracy theory.

I am on the fence about the moon landing, on the denialist side I love the material, on the 'actual' side I had the chance to sit and have drinks for an evening with a retired Nasa astronaut and about 8 other people. He is ranked 2nd for most number of space missions. He had good jokes and stories about the mundane stuff and small pranks they would play on one another, taking a dump in space etc. He didn't entirely hold the official line either and talked about dark shapes, like demon snakes that they would see outside of the shuttle. He never landed on the moon though, just lots of space walks and shuttle work.

 

[M3B]

I like the james bond moon landing conspiracy theory.

I am on the fence about the moon landing, on the denialist side I love the material, on the 'actual' side I had the chance to sit and have drinks for an evening with a retired Nasa astronaut and about 8 other people. He is ranked 2nd for most number of space missions. He had good jokes and stories about the mundane stuff and small pranks they would play on one another, taking a dump in space etc. He didn't entirely hold the official line either and talked about dark shapes, like demon snakes that they would see outside of the shuttle. He never landed on the moon though, just lots of space walks and shuttle work.

Can you elaborate?

 

[Eusebius]

Deleted