Did we land on the moon?

Do you believe that we landed on the moon?

  • Yes

    Votes: 81 51.6%
  • No

    Votes: 50 31.8%
  • Don't know / not sure

    Votes: 26 16.6%

  • Total voters
    157
  • Poll closed .
Here's a thought: Can a reflector not be a satellite, in a synchronous, low orbit around the moon? Hohmann transfers and orbital insertions are fairly straightforward, as opposed to landing on remote bodies.

How would someone pointing a laser at the moon, at a certain time and coordinate, know whether it is hitting a reflector on the surface, or in orbit?
 

placer

Kingfisher
@falkenhost A satellite would not work, because the laser would be able to tell it was closer to earth then the moon is.

But, I think we’ve been discussing the nuts and bolts about the moon landing (and why we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that we landed on the moon; the reflector issue alone proves it) without looking at the big picture.

The big picture is this: Our 1969 manned landing on the moon shows that God fearing Americans, working together, can accomplish great things. A combination of faith in God, hard work, and creativity allowed America to get someone on the moon; this shows that, when the United States unifies and puts our mind to to solving problems and accomplishing things, there is just about nothing we can not accomplish.

America was truly a great nation in the late 1960s; unquestionably the greatest nation in the world. yes, we had the hippies, yes we had the protests, yes we had the idiots who idolized out of control alcoholics and drug addicts who killed themselves before they turned 30 (Jim Morrison, most notably), and yes we had the the idiocy of widespread sexual immorality under the name of “free love” happening (one reason why I saved it for my wife is because I saw as a kid all those free love hippies screwing around like rabbits, and seeing just how little real satisfaction they were getting from all that empty meaningless sex), but those people were, at the time, a minority.

I think if we returned to kind, loving, traditional values, institutions like marriage and church, faith in a caring God, self-sacrifice, hard work, I think we would be able to to back to the moon, and then move on to Mars or even Venus. Or we could cure cancer. Or...the sky is the limit.

I can see why young people can not believe we landed on the moon. A world dominated by the hatred and division places like Twitter sows [1] is not a world where we can work together to get on the moon. So the skepticism is understandable.

It was not always this way. We were, not too long ago, a nation which could and did make it to the moon.

[1] As an aside, just as I block porn, I also block Twitter; I will use a web archive the occasional time I need to see a particular tweet.
 
Last edited:
Haha, ok pal
Ignoring the questions makes your position look weak. Why didn't you already know that the official NASA story does not claim that Buzz Aldrin's mission had a lunar rover? Why are you attempting to ridicule something that not even NASA claims happened? Why don't you feel shame and embarrassment when it's revealed you just tried to debunk something which nobody claims happened?

How can you claim the official NASA story is fake when you don't even know the official NASA story?
 

Sword and Board

Woodpecker
Why didn't you already know this? Why didn't you spend 30 seconds researching this? Why don't you feel intense shame at having made the joke you just tried to made, and then finding out that the official NASA story doesn't even make the claim that you're attempting to ridicule. This is an enormous fail on your part.
There are multiple questions here. I do not feel intense shame or embarrassment for a silly joke. I have to wonder why you are getting so worked up, aggressive and possibly trying to bait me into retaliation for something you cherry picked and dwell on. What exactly is your beef. Jewish?

I mean your friend above probably is

Seconded. We are not Stormfront; RooshVForum started off as a place where we talked about getting to know beautiful women from all nations, cultures, and races.

I don’t like the idea of us having a “white nation”; I like living in a country where I can legally marry a beautiful black or Latina woman.
 

Talus

Pigeon
But, I think we’ve been discussing the nuts and bolts about the moon landing (and why we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that we landed on the moon; the reflector issue alone proves it) .
How do you know beyond reasonable doubt there are reflectors on the moon? Because a NY Times article says so? Because a wikipedia article says so? The truth is, NASA says they put a reflector on the moon and they shoot a laser at it. You believe what they say. That's the real nuts and bolts.
The ultimate problem that Moon Deniers have with the manned moon missions is that over time, as technology proceeds and improves, this event should have been replicated and improved upon, with greater and greater ease. If the moon landings were achieved on such primitive, minimal technology, then why is the current potential being squandered? Moon believers would say that modern political and financial corruption and instability can't be worked around. And moon deniers will just point out it's always been that way.

It seems that the majority if this debate can be reduced to trust in NASA.
 

ginsu

Robin
You should feel shame and embarrassment in having claimed the official story is fake when you don't even know the official story.
why keep going back to the shame and embarrasment ?. Is it somekind of cultural thing ?. Anyway its enough to take 5 secs and update your ideas if it turns out some part of it was not accurate, and move on. especially if the general point is good.

We should protect our peace of mind as much as possible from minor stress/energy drains over nonsense ( people ). Everyone should be vigilant not to open themselves up to waste time and energy on feeling negativity over non life threatening things with all the other current events that are unfolding... Discard almost everything incl people that don't help your state of mind.

someone pressuring you to feel shame = straight into the trash

Exceptions for when you need to learn something valuable which can come at the price of discomfort.
 
Last edited:
why keep going back to the shame and embarrasment ?. Is it somekind of cultural thing ?
It's a male thing. It's a component of a good character. You're supposed to strive to know the truth, and where you fall short of that, feeling bad about it is a necessary part of correcting it. This is true in every facet of life.

I'll give an example that has nothing to do with NASA: imagine you discover some money is missing at work. You accuse a coworker of stealing it. Later, it turns out no money was ever stolen - you thought it was missing but it never actually was. You were wrong. You should have double checked before making your accusation. If you don't feel a little bit of embarrassment over that, then I call you a bad person. You ought to apologize. That's what a man of good character would do.

If the story plays out like this: you point at someone and say, "you're a thief!" then it turns out no money was even stolen; nobody is the thief. And your response is to shrug and act like it's no big deal, then you're a bad person. You are of low moral quality.

CT: "NASA claims to have successfully landed on the moon with no prior tests and no glitches! Clearly they are liars!" Me: Uh no, that's not what NASA claims. There were many tests and glitches. CT: *shrug* it's not a big deal that I was wrong.

CT: "NASA claims this lander is wrapped in aluminium foil! Clearly they are liars!" Me: Uh no, that's not what NASA claims. The lander is made of titanium and the insulation is kapton. CT: *shrug* it's not a big deal that I was wrong.

CT: "NASA claims that Buzz Aldrin was joy riding in a rover! Me: Uh no, that's not what NASA claims. CT: *shrug* it's not a big deal that I was wrong.

At some point, you have to start taking responsibility for the false accusations you're making. Continually shrugging them off and moving on to another (also false) accusation makes you a bad person.
 
Last edited:

Sword and Board

Woodpecker
Ok guy, not Buzz but astronaut X apparently didAccording to NASA

NASA has released ‘official’ footage of spacemen bouncing around on clearly visible wire harnesses and other extremely suspicious Video footage. Shit they had to delete (sorry lost) most of it because of how embarrassingly fake it appears under scrutiny.

The fact is the Relatively agricultural tech Of the 60’s and the logistical feats getting man on the moon safely. Re launching and returning to earth safely is extremely unlikely. Especially when you examine the contraptions and d-grade 80’s sci-fi film gizmos they would have you believe pulled off these extremely demanding tasks and Flawless mechanical miracles.

pacer talks of God willing triumph but this lie is an affront to God like the tower of Babylon. It seeks to make the people believe that their rulers and science is above God.
 

Sword and Board

Woodpecker
The Anglo sphere is exploited through its pride and these lies become too big to fail much like the malaki of ww2 “the good war”
If the goy realize we can pull off a huge lie like the moon landing, they may start asking questions about our 6 gorillion! They may start to ask about these wars they die in and the costs their great grandchildren will be indebted with. They may lose trust in the puppet Government we have installed for them and our monetary system.

They may even start looking to God instead of us!
 

ginsu

Robin
It's a male thing. It's a component of a good character. You're supposed to strive to know the truth, and where you fall short of that, feeling bad about it is a necessary part of correcting it. This is true in every facet of life.

I'll give an example that has nothing to do with NASA: imagine you discover some money is missing at work. You accuse a coworker of stealing it. Later, it turns out no money was ever stolen - you thought it was missing but it never actually was. You were wrong. You should have double checked before making your accusation. If you don't feel a little bit of embarrassment over that, then I call you a bad person. You ought to apologize. That's what a man of good character would do.

If the story plays out like this: you point at someone and say, "you're a thief!" then it turns out no money was even stolen; nobody is the thief. And your response is to shrug and act like it's no big deal, then you're a bad person. You are of low moral quality.

CT: "NASA claims to have successfully landed on the moon with no prior tests and no glitches! Clearly they are liars!" Me: Uh no, that's not what NASA claims. There were many tests and glitches. CT: *shrug* it's not a big deal that I was wrong.

CT: "NASA claims this lander is wrapped in aluminium foil! Clearly they are liars!" Me: Uh no, that's not what NASA claims. The lander is made of titanium and the insulation is kapton. CT: *shrug* it's not a big deal that I was wrong.

CT: "NASA claims that Buzz Aldrin was joy riding in a rover! Me: Uh no, that's not what NASA claims. CT: *shrug* it's not a big deal that I was wrong.

At some point, you have to start taking responsibility for the false accusations you're making. Continually shrugging them off and moving on to another (also false) accusation makes you a bad person.
I agree except for that it has to be a negative feeling that pushes someone to correct their ideas in the search for truth. This is why i thought that it might be a cultural difference. The more negative feelings are attached to admitting ones mistakes the less likely a person becomes to admit to making the mistake. or asking ''stupid'' questions in their search for truth. You can end up in a situation where no one is willing to make a mistake in order to avoid that shame, in which case the search for truth is impeded.

I do think that the approach of '' its not a big deal'' is the correct one when you are able to admit to your own mistakes and quickly follow it up with '' ill change or fix it''. Its not a matter of not caring, its about priorities. Skipping over those negative feelings or changing them into positive ones just speeds up the process. rather than having to keep going through the shame cycle for each little mistake.

We also have the fact that men today are already shamed and made to feel guilt and confusion enough over what is normal male behavior then we have the current worldwide events going on that are also meant to wear people down. The ''a mistake was made who cares'' approach is the best way to go, men have to be stoics and sometimes appear arrogant by necessity because its a spiritual and mental war out there. You cant let every little thing get to you and stick, it will build up over time. So discard 90% of negative feelings that you could have let yourself indulge in. Its not worth it, even when you make small or medium or large mistakes. All that matters is that you see it, and do better next time. But again i think it might be a cultural difference over honor/symbolism/feeling vs results oriented.
 
Last edited:
NASA has released ‘official’ footage of spacemen bouncing around on clearly visible wire harnesses
That's a claim you need to support with evidence. You likely aren't aware of the PLSS radio antenna.

Shit they had to delete (sorry lost) most of it
That's a lie. There are nearly 6000 high quality photos taken with 70mm Hasselblad cameras. There are thousands of hours of color video recorded with 16-mm Maurer cameras. There was also a black and white Westinghouse TV camera that recorded 10 frames per second. Two hours of video from that camera was broadcast from the moon and received by a ground station in Australia, where it was recorded and also retransmitted to a satellite and then back to Earth in the US. It was converted from 10fps to 30fps, recorded at that scan rate, and transmitted to viewers all over the world by TV networks.

Turns out, the recording of the signal made in Australia at 10fps was not saved. You lie when you claim that NASA deleted "most of it" - the recording made in the US at 30fps still exists (it's even on youtube). And all the other footage, both still and video, still exists as well. There's no other way to say it. You're just lying.

the Relatively agricultural tech Of the 60’s and the logistical feats getting man on the moon safely. Re launching and returning to earth safely is extremely unlikely.
I'm not sure what you mean by "agricultural tech" but your only point here seems to be that you don't understand how something works, so therefore you claim it must be fake.

You know, the first flight of the Concorde was the same year as Apollo 11:
There is currently no aircraft in existence that large and that fast. The same era's tech, which you call "agricultural tech" produced an airliner that could go twice the speed of sound. Was the Concorde fake too?

Also in the '60s, the Trieste reached the bottom of the Mariana trench: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trieste_(bathyscaphe) No other human went that deep until 2012. Was the Trieste fake too? Just because you don't understand how it worked, and it made use of '60s tech, does that make it fake?


they would have you believe pulled off these extremely demanding tasks and Flawless mechanical miracles.
Another lie. This time, you haven't even read the last couple of pages of this thread! There were many mechanical problems. The missions were far from flawless. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
 
If you ask me, considering the amount of effort it would take to have entire teams of scientists faking results showing that there are mirrors on the moon over a period of five decades, it would be far easier to just have some people land on the moon and leave a reflector there before coming back.

If it were all faked, we probably would had fessed up about it sometime in the 1990s after the cold war ended, just so we could stop having all these teams of scientists pretending to get mirror reflections when shooting lasers at the moon.
.
Why in the world would they do that? You really think Nasa would come out admitting they are frauds to the public? I can't even begin to imagine the backlash. If your standard for catching a lie is a straight confession from the liar then most liars would get away with it. You do realize they get billions in yearly funding on the line...not to mention the reputation of the whole country. You really don't think with a budget of over 20 billions they won't give scientist some make believe work to do? Compartmentalization has been mentioned here.


that's a narrative that you're inventing. "NASA comes in with scientific explanations only after we raise objections."

The truth is, you don't bother to learn about the thing you're claiming is fake, and as a result you're asking stupid questions. Then NASA PR, or people like me, have to explain things to you, and when we explain something to you, you twist that into further proof that it's a hoax. Here's a great example:
Are you telling me that nasa explained why the flag was waiving in their first press conference after landing from the moon? I am pretty sure there has been many people questioning them since before the internet. They raised the question about the flag waiving and then Nasa came in with their official scientific explanation. No narrative here just common sense.


The "clunky aluminium wrap" is call kapton. But of course, you've never heard the word "kapton" because you don't bother googling this before making your claims. So now it's up to me to link you to the wiki page on kapton: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapton and point out that it's still used today, and it's up to me to offer photos of the lunar lander before the kapton insulation is applied


These photos show the titanium (that's right, TITANIUM) hull, and of course, you've never seen such photos because it never even occurred to you to do a moment's research on your own before commenting.
You cherry picked a clear hyperbole. No I didn't actually think the spaceship was an empty can of tuna. That thing still looks like it came out an old sci-fi movie to me. I never claimed to be a rocket scientist giving a technical opinion. Here is the thing: I don't really know the technicalities of how a plane fly, I don't know how the engines work nor how much fuel you need fly. However, I can see them flying. I heard other people say they have traveled in them and finally I experienced one myself. That's why I am comfortable with their existence. You are asking to believe in poor photographic evidence and grade A propaganda of supposed machine capable of flying to the moon and back something which has not been replicated in my lifetime. This is akin to believing in the tales of dragons.

There are however many people who do discuss the technical problems with the rocket. They are well documented HERE . Please go there and fulfill your fetish of debunking them. You can see examples of parts not even being properly connected together such as this:

TransparentArticulationShow.jpg

and other problems with the landing pads ect.

You didn't address the list of contradictions by the astronauts. Many have been mentioned in this thread also some more examples in this link.

I will actually go ahead and link the whole blog. People can read all the absurdities and judge for themselves. Some highlights:
Appolo 11
Appolo 12
Space videos
Weird maneuvers of spaceship


You do realize that before the block of conspiracy content on youtube there used to be hundreds of videos each finding different holes in the footage. You haven't even begun to debunk the objections raised. Just because most of us here don't have the time to list every single problem doesn't mean that others didn't. Relying on the old camera technology is simply insufficient and doesn't stand the test of scrutiny probably why nasa 'lost' a lot of it. All of you here defending nasa are rationalizing as to why they don't go back to the moon. I don't see one legitimate reason except for the scenario where they never went in the first place.


...and now that I've explained it to you, you'll fall back on what you said above: "objections are raised first and then 'scientific reasons' are given."

No, my friend, the perfectly rational explanations were already out there. You just didn't bother to look for them yourself. Instead, you look at a spacecraft insulated with kapton and you think, "I don't understand this, therefore it must be fake" - and you leave it to other people to explain it to you.
I really do not want to be your friend. You sound like a bitter old boomer full of pride. I suggest some daily prayer to calm your soul.
You are working a solution from the assumption that it was feasible to go to the moon. Why is it feasible? Because nasa landed there on TV. That is circular logic the same one you accuse us of having. If a task is impossible isn't faking a possibility? Nasa did their research with the massive funding they had received and produced their best effort by 1960s standards. This conspiracy will not die down until travel to the moon is open to the public. We can revisit this thread in the next years for updates on that. My guess: we still don't have the technology to send people to the moon.
 

placer

Kingfisher
How do you know beyond reasonable doubt there are reflectors on the moon? Because a NY Times article says so? Because a wikipedia article says so? The truth is, NASA says they put a reflector on the moon and they shoot a laser at it. You believe what they say.
There are also observatories in France, Germany, Brazil, etc. which have shot lasers at the moon and bounced off of those retro-reflectors. Non-NASA observatories. Are we to seriously believe that multiple groups of scientists, from across the world, have been consistently lying about something for 50 years? Without there being anyone leaking the lie??

To claim that multiple groups of scientists are engaging in fraudulent experiments over a period of 50 years is a pretty extraordinary claim, which needs pretty extraordinary evidence. Yet the conspiracy theorists have none. Heck, the conspiracy theorists can not even be consistent about their claims. I mean, at least be consistent about the story: Did we put reflectors on the moon, or didn’t we?

At no time in the history of humanity have a large group of people been able to lie and keep an ongoing secret going for half a century, which is what the “all those laser beam experiments are a lie” theory needs us to believe. As a counter example, It only took two months for the “A Rape On Campus” lie to unravel.
 
Last edited:
Another lie. This time, you haven't even read the last couple of pages of this thread! There were many mechanical problems. The missions were far from flawless. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
Well every hollywood movie needs some obstacles for the hero to overcome. Nasa got some scriptwriters big deal. After all who's going to believe a flawless journey.
 
There are also observatories in France, Germany, Brazil, etc. which have shot lasers at the moon and bounced off of those retro-reflectors. Non-NASA observatories. Are we to seriously believe that multiple groups of scientists, from across the world, have been consistently lying about something for 50 years? Without there being anyone leaking the lie??

To claim that multiple groups of scientists are engaging in fraudulent experiments over a period of 50 years is a pretty extraordinary claim, which needs pretty extraordinary evidence. Yet the conspiracy theorists have none. Heck, the conspiracy theorists can not even be consistent about their claims. I mean, at least be consistent about the story: Did we put reflectors on the moon, or didn’t we?

At no time in the history of humanity have a large group of people been able to lie and keep an ongoing secret going for half a century,
which is what the “all those laser beam experiments are a lie” theory needs us to believe. As a counter example, It only took two months for the “A Rape On Campus” lie to unravel.
Well if they did manage to keep the lie you wouldn't know it is a lie. Your premise is already flawed and therefore your statement is false.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 007
There are also observatories in France, Germany, Brazil, etc. which have shot lasers at the moon and bounced off of those retro-reflectors. Non-NASA observatories. Are we to seriously believe that multiple groups of scientists, from across the world, have been consistently lying about something for 50 years? Without there being anyone leaking the lie??

To claim that multiple groups of scientists are engaging in fraudulent experiments over a period of 50 years is a pretty extraordinary claim, which needs pretty extraordinary evidence. Yet the conspiracy theorists have none. Heck, the conspiracy theorists can not even be consistent about their claims. I mean, at least be consistent about the story: Did we put reflectors on the moon, or didn’t we?
Placer, you are arguing things most of these guys can't understand unfortunately. My tinfoil comment previously was said with all seriousness. The hoaxers claim that because we could bounce lasers off the moon before the Apollo missions, the reflectors are a lie. They have no understanding of reflected vs. diffused light and the value of having a calibrated point to test.

AgainstAllOdds was questioning someone else about the Van Allen belts, displaying fundamental misconceptions about not only particulate vs energy radiation but also the physical navigation of these belts. When encouraged to learn about the nature of the subject he never responded again.

Likewise, I was directed to examine the "wire work" examples and found clearly deceptive editing. One shot was hiding one of the astronauts arms and cutting away within a frame or two when his arm became visible to make it look like implausible action. Later the narrator and a superimposed finger were directing you to look at the top of the screen to see a video artifact. They conclude it is a wire reflection while there are 3 other artifacts that flash at the same moment at the bottom of the screen on other objects. 911 posted the video but would never respond if he found those tactics deceptive or downright dishonest.

Those are the intellectual heavyweights in this argument. They were slightly more articulate than my old stoner friend who first told me about the moon hoax theories. Nevertheless, I have yet to hear one of them respond in an intelligent way or display anything greater than history channel level "SCIENCE!" understanding. At least my stoner friend didn't rant about the Jews at some point in all this.
 

placer

Kingfisher
The hoaxers claim that because we could bounce lasers off the moon before the Apollo missions, the reflectors are a lie. They have no understanding of reflected vs. diffused light and the value of having a calibrated point to test.
The theories I have been seeing here are pretty intellectually lazy, and they do not require any credible evidence. This alternate universe where large groups of people are telling a perfect lie, a lie where all reasonable evidence is simply made up, a lie which has been told for decades, a lie which never unravels, a lie where not one person comes clean that they have been lying, a lie which is so perfect, this alternative universe with all these liars creates an observable world which looks exactly like our universe where the lie does not exist.

There are two plausible scenarios here: We either put people on the moon, left retroreflectors on the ground while there, and are using those retroreflectors in experiments to this day, or thousands of people across the world have been telling a perfect lie for over 50 years, a lie so perfect, there is not even any real evidence the lie is being told. Both scenarios result in the same observed universe.

The universe where we really went to the moon is the simpler one. Occam’s razor and all that.
 
Last edited:
911 was saying its a "intellectual exercise" or something to that nature (sorry if I paraphrased) and that speaks to what you are saying. Those that believe the hoax say we are blindly faithful to the narrative and unwilling to question things. The truth is science is the very foundation for this whole argument (unlike some other conspiracies). You notice none of these guys posit their claims as a hypothesis + demonstrative evidence. They certainly make the claim, but there is no follow up reasoning. I watched a documentary provided and there was absolutely ZERO scientific inquiry. No investigation into new claims, or acceptance of supporting science that disproves old ones. The entire hoax argument is designed to create a feeling of surety. It's emotional arguments designed to titillate. To allow the debate to move forward in intellectual honestly would leave less ground for their safe feelings. The safest space for them is the compartmentalization argument, they believe that implausibility wholeheartedly while claiming anyone who thinks differently is blind. It is genuinely sad to see otherwise intelligent people so deceived.

Before I did more design work I was a mechanic doing troubleshooting...I would not abide the level of discourse here (and would call some of the posters much less polite things) if I had to deal with such weak minded investigative techniques. As such, it's not even worth answering questions that they will raise 3 pages later. I can't be bothered with the nonsense until someone explains to me how a 1 hour and 43 minute recording in exclusively slow motion was made when that technology was not even available and film reels that size did not exist during that time period. Force the hoaxers to explain how their vaunted recording was even made, let alone all the Hollywood types that would have had to keep the secret as well.
 
You are working a solution from the assumption that it was feasible to go to the moon.
The only reason to believe it's not feasible at all, would be if you don't believe Neutonian-level physics. Are you a flat Earther? I'm aware that belief in a flat earth necessitates belief that apollo (and a lot of other things) are hoaxes.

Why is it feasible? Because nasa landed there on TV.
No. My reasoning isn't circular, and neither is most people's. The population of earth when the moon race began in 1960 was about three billion. Plenty of them believed it was feasible before NASA did it.

You cherry picked a clear hyperbole.
If you're presenting hyperbole then that's your fault.

It is your responsibility to present your single best argument. Just one. If you roll out a copy/pasta or a two hour video, that's a dishonest tactic called a gish gallop: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

Feel free to present your single best argument and I'll be happy to respond to it.

No I didn't actually think the spaceship was an empty can of tuna.
I did't say you did. I quoted what you said and refuted it.

That thing still looks like it came out an old sci-fi movie to me.
Your opinion is obviously irrelevant. And if I were say that the landings definitely happened because "these rockets look super cool to me!" that would also be irrelevant.
 
Top