Did We Really Land on the Moon?

[Will B Good]

1 minute ago, Skeptic7 said:

Is there any mainstream history or teaching you do accept as true ⁉️ Gonna go out on a limb here and assume you are also a believer in god...and are a FLERF (Flat Earther) too...yes❓

 

Or a "premiership" windup merchant?

[richard_smith237]

Frederick S. Perls; Out the Garbage Pail - 1969 - "Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe”

 

If ever there were a thread showcasing this this quote - this is it..... 

 

Idiots abound, and and while I'd prefer not to drag as discussion down to personal ridicule, sometimes the idiocy is so overwhelming the comments made by some are simply not deserving of any intelligent response for they draw on flawed and distorted conclusions, rely on false information, attempt to weaken facts through compartmentalisation and segregation....

 

.... In short...  the only viable response to to the anti-moon-landers is the same as that to flat earth's... "pish off you dumb pest"....    its the only response they deserve, yet someone how we get dragged into the debate with these cerebrally illiterate fools because we attempt to maintain the methodology of the scientific debate "postulate, question, prove"...

 

... the simple reality is that some people are simply not deserving of this level of response and this is how we get dragged down into the moronic, the idiotic, the time-wasting association with those whom I can only term 'idiotic morons'... 

 

 

[petedk]

On 1/25/2025 at 8:13 PM, Walker88 said:

Of course we went to the moon, because it's so close.

 

I once asked a Thai woman, "What's closer, the moon or Pattaya?"

 

She thought for a moment and said, "The moon". I asked why. "Because I can see the moon from Bangkok, but I can't see Pattaya".

 

So, for the Lunartics out there who think man never landed on the moon, it's probably only a 1500 baht taxi ride to the moon, because it's about 1700 to farther-away Pattaya. Just tell the taxi driver: "Sea of Tranquillity". He knows the best route.

 

It doesn't look big enough to land on!

[Skeptic7]

7 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

Or a "premiership" windup merchant?

Possibly, but in my experience most of these people actually believe the nonsense they are spewing and are not trolls. I believe this guy is serious, but either way...these "spewers of wild ideas plucked out of one's backside" don't wind me up at all. I find them highly entertaining and hysterically comical❗🤣

[Will B Good]

Just now, Skeptic7 said:

Possibly, but in my experience most of these people actually believe the nonsense they are spewing and are not trolls. I believe this guy is serious, but either way...these "spewers of wild ideas plucked out of one's backside" don't wind me up at all. I find them highly entertaining and hysterically comical❗🤣

 

If I knew that they were doing it as....say.... a mental exercise ......in using what logic they could call upon to argue the toss it could be quite interesting to 'debate'.......but blind faith that everything we're 'told' is fake.....well???

[Hummin]

36 minutes ago, Gobbler said:

 

I watched his interview with Joe Rogan and did what you just said he didn't. 

 

Who is lying?  I think you are. 

Please provide a link

[DualSportBiker]

44 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Must refer you to my last post where I explained that the speed of light was recently changed.

 

Only 69 people were in the know about the moon landing hoaxes. i was not one of them by the way. But I know a man who was.

Refer all you want, the speed of light has not changed. 

 

And know you don't. Sorry, but you are off your tree if you think that you should be taken seriously.

[Will B Good]

1 minute ago, DualSportBiker said:

Refer all you want, the speed of light has not changed. 

 

And know you don't. Sorry, but you are off your tree if you think that you should be taken seriously.

 

555 Spot on.

[Skeptic7]

18 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

If I knew that they were doing it as....say.... a mental exercise ......in using what logic they could call upon to argue the toss it could be quite interesting to 'debate'.......but blind faith that everything we're 'told' is fake.....well???

For many years one of my fave podcasts was The Atheist Experience and later Modern Day Debate, which have debates about god belief, flat earth, moon landings, etc. I found it fascinating how dedicated to denial of science, facts, evidence and history these types were. And how gullible and so easily sucked in to every crazy idea out there. Mind-blowing actually. Don't watch any longer as just grew tired of their same ol' tired song and dance while never, ever presenting even a shred of evidence of a god...nor even any semblance of a working model of a pancake earth. Denial and blind faith is all they got. 

[Will B Good]

Just now, Skeptic7 said:

For many years one of my fave podcasts was The Atheist Experience and later Modern Day Debate, which have debates about god belief, flat earth, moon landings, etc. I found it fascinating how dedicated to denial of science, facts, evidence and history these types were. And how gullible and so easily sucked in to every crazy idea out there. Mind-blowing actually. Don't watch any longer as just grew tired of their same ol' tired song and dance while never, ever presenting even a shred of evidence of a god...nor even any semblance of a working model of a pancake earth. Denial and blind faith is all they got. 

 

Christopher Hitchens is my "God".

 

Had a brief spat yesterday with a 'Christian'.......in one response he wrote...."God purposefully gave Hitchens throat cancer to shut him up".

 

Un*******believable.

[Thingamabob]

Making a film of a fake landing would involve a lot of people. Not one person from NASA, or from related agencies, has ever indicated a hoax.  

[Andyfez]

 

[Stiddle Mump]

7 minutes ago, DualSportBiker said:

Refer all you want, the speed of light has not changed. 

 

And know you don't. Sorry, but you are off your tree if you think that you should be taken seriously.

The speed of light is not an absolute. Does it npot depend on whether it is blue or red? But, I'm not referring to that.

 

What I'm saying; is that the scientific measurement of it has  changed. As with most fundamental belief changes; not shouted out too loudly from the mountin top. Egg on face; and all that. Because as we know, back in the 70s the ice age commeth. Polar bears will be fighting the locals for a chip buttie in Newcastle.

 

''The science is settled.''

[scottiejohn]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

And what's even more odd, if I'd typed "fake moon landing shadows" into Google 5 years back, I would have got 50 photos with dodgy shadows going in all directions. Now they've all disappeared.

 

Do you mean this one:

I just did type "fake moon landing shadows" into Google;  This is what I got! 

 

Moon landing conspiracy theories, debunked | Royal Museums Greenwich

[Will B Good]

28 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

The speed of light is not an absolute. Does it npot depend on whether it is blue or red? But, I'm not referring to that.

 

What I'm saying; is that the scientific measurement of it has  changed. As with most fundamental belief changes; not shouted out too loudly from the mountin top. Egg on face; and all that. Because as we know, back in the 70s the ice age commeth. Polar bears will be fighting the locals for a chip buttie in Newcastle.

 

''The science is settled.''

 

The whole of post-classical Physics is based on the speed of light being a priori postulate and enjoys posteriori experimental validation. 

 

And no......the speed of light doesn't depend on anything......it has a fixed value and the whole of modern Physics is based on it's fixed value.

[Liverpool Lou]

On 1/25/2025 at 8:03 PM, Walker88 said:

Oh my!

 

Just as Stanley Kubrick 'directed' the lunar landings, did Christopher Nolan travel back in time to make the films of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

 

Can you post links to your 'research'?

Do you understand the concept of obvious sarcasm?

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, scottiejohn said:

 

Do you mean this one:

I just did type "fake moon landing shadows" into Google;  This is what I got! 

 

Moon landing conspiracy theories, debunked | Royal Museums Greenwich

5 years back you could find photos with shadows all over the shop, they've been disappeared, and now you can only easily find the photos you have just shown, which are explained away as parallax problems (even though those don't happen with point light sources like the sun).

I find that disturbing, someone has taken the time to hide all the old problematic photos.

 

You also get pages and pages of 'moon landing not faked' stories, and the original conspiracy sites are all gone, no matter how hard you look or what words you type in your search engine.

[BusyB]

On 1/25/2025 at 3:04 PM, Kinnock said:

Nobody honestly believes man didn't land on the moon. 

 

It's just that total losers who've never achieved anything have found that spouting nonesense conspiracy theories and denigrating one of man's greatest achievements can get a reaction on social media that they could never hope to get by posting about their own lives.

 

Don't feed the trolls and let them slip back into the darkness of their little cave of ignorance.

 

That's not only true about the moon landings ...

[Gottfrid]

No, I am pretty sure we did not (almost everyone of us) land on the moon! Neil Armstrong, did!

[KhunLA]

If I didn't take that iconic photo myself, I doubt if I would believe that aluminum & tin foil can made it to the surface and back.

 

[Hummin]

I did see one of the Discovery shuttles go up in to the space in 1994. 

 

Quite extraordinary experience. If you seen it live on location you know what I'm talking about

[1FinickyOne]

On 1/26/2025 at 8:13 AM, BritManToo said:

Most people never achieve anything!

That observation is surely an achievement - in my book anyway

[Freddy42OZ]

On 1/25/2025 at 9:04 PM, Kinnock said:

Nobody honestly believes man didn't land on the moon. 

 

It's just that total losers who've never achieved anything have found that spouting nonesense conspiracy theories and denigrating one of man's greatest achievements can get a reaction on social media that they could never hope to get by posting about their own lives.

 

Don't feed the trolls and let them slip back into the darkness of their little cave of ignorance.

 

 

Agreed. 

Anyone who doesn't believe humans have walked on the moon is someone is lacking intelligence.

[Gobbler]

4 hours ago, DualSportBiker said:

Around 400,000 worked on Apollo tech, across around 20,000 companies... No chance in hell that a fake project would not have been leaked.

 

Manhattan Project.  Not leaked.

[Phillip9]

5 minutes ago, Freddy42OZ said:

Anyone who doesn't believe humans have walked on the moon is someone is lacking intelligence.

 

Nobody here actually believes that.  The people here saying they don't believe it are just the usual trolls who contradict everything to get attention and argumentative responses.  Everyone needs to learn to ignore the trolls.

[save the frogs]

4 hours ago, Will B Good said:

but this was part of a broader comment about the lack of follow-up Moon missions after Apollo, not a denial of the original landing.

but the lack of follow up missions is suspicious.

and the ridiculous little footage we have of the moon is suspicious. 

 

[scottiejohn]

14 minutes ago, Gobbler said:

 

Manhattan Project.  Not leaked.

It was to the Russians!

link; Manhattan Project: Espionage and the Manhattan Project, 1940-1945

Plus many other sources!!

[Kerryd]

"No matter how much evidence you show that proves the moon landings were faked, there are people who will still believe they were real.

No matter how much evidence you show that proves the moon landings were real, there are people who will still believe they were faked."

(I just made that up.)

And yes, NASA DID lose the original photos and negatives from the moon landings. They were "accidentally" destroyed was the official explanation when people wanted to see them to find out things like why there are stars in the background of most moon photos. And why the shadows don't seem to match the objects in many shots.

There's a wiki entry about the "missing tapes" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes#Search_for_the_missing_tapes

And why was the flag they planted "waving" as though there was a breeze ? (NASA tried to claim they had the flag specifically made so that it would "look" like it was blowing in a breeze - on a moon with no atmosphere or wind.)

And why is it that photos of Earth, taken from the Moon, appear to be the SAME size as photos of the moon when taken from Earth ?

It is NOT "perception". "Perception" would be seeing two different sized objects in front of you at different distances and thinking the closest one is larger when it's not.

The distance from the Earth to the Moon is literally exactly the same as the distance from the Moon to the Earth.
But the Earth is SIX times larger than the moon so why doesn't it appear SIX times larger in photos taken on the lunar surface ?

Here's a simple test. Take a basket ball and a softball (or a soccer ball and a tennis ball) and set them a meter apart on a table.

Stand behind the larger ball and look at the smaller one. Now stand behind the smaller ball and look at the larger one. 

According to the NASA photos - they should appear to be the same size. But in reality, if you were on the surface of the smaller ball and looking at the bigger one, it would appear HUGE by comparison.

I do have an image supposedly taken by a Chinese satellite that was scanning the "dark side" of the moon - so that the camera captured the (back side) of the moon with the Earth beyond that.

Amazing how much different that is compared to the "looking at Earth from the lunar surface photos we've seen from NASA".

Here's another oddity. 

The current Artemis missions. 

The stated purpose of the Artemis 1 mission was to "examine the conditions astronauts would face on the lunar surface".
That statement made me sit up and gasp !

Excuse me ? 6 "crewed moon landings" between '69 and '72 and NASA doesn't know what "conditions" astronauts on the Artemis 2 mission will face ?

What, did they lose all that information as well ? It's not like the moon has undergone "climate change" over the last 50 years so how is it they apparently don't know what the astronauts will face when they land on the surface ?

And here's a laugh. 
The first "moon landing" was in July 1969.

Diamonds are Forever was a James Bond film released in Dec 1971, just over 2 years later. But the script was written long before that, the sets produced, actors rehearsed and so on. Filming actually started in April 1971 but the script was approved long before that.

And who can forget the scene where Bond is trying to escape from Willard Whyte's facility (controlled by Bloefeld) and he crashes through a wall - into the middle of a fake moon landing set with a lunar lander, "astronauts" on wires hopping around and - a  lunar buggy !
(Apollo 15 was the first mission to use a "Lunar Roving Vehicle" and that mission landed in July 1971 - months after the Bond film had already started filming.)

Makes you wonder where they got the idea in that film to create a fake moon landing scene - long before anyone even thought to question if the moon landings were real !
And they had a "moon buggy" (which Bond used to escape into the desert) - even before NASA put one on the moon ! 

How did the writers "guess" about all that ? Or get the idea that the landings were fake and include that scene in the movie ?

Here is the image supposedly taken by the Chinese satellite. Note how small the moon is compared to Earth. As mentioned, Earth is about 6 times larger than the moon so it makes sense it would appear much larger in any photo.



Now imagine you are on the surface of the moon, looking back at the Earth.

This is the Apollo 11 photo taken in July 1969 from the moon:


And this is the Apollo 12 "Earth Shot" taken on 19 Nov 1969.



Isn't it funny how the Earth looks the same size as the Moon does when viewed from Earth ?

Despite it being 6 times larger than the moon ?

By rights - and the laws of physics - the Earth should appear massive in those photos.

But even if you did fake a moon landing - there'd be a lot of people who would know about it, including the astronauts themselves.
(Because they would have had to been in on it as they would have noticed something was off if they took off from earth and just orbitted the planet for a couple days while another crew "faked the landing" at a studio on Earth and then they just returned to Earth themselves.

It could be done, but keeping everyone quiet about it for 50+ years ?

They couldn't make them all disappear in "accidents".

What has always got me though was we landed people on the moon 6 times and then stopped.

And in the 55 years since then all we can do is put a ramshackle little "space station" in low Earth orbit and we can barely even keep it supplied or change the crew.

You'd think the Shuttles should have easily been able to make it to the Moon and back if those tiny "lunar landers" and "command modules" could.

The Apollo 15 Lunar Module for example was 23' high and 31' wide and weighed about 11,000 pounds including fuel, water, oxygen and - Lunar Roving Module. (The Apollo 11 Lunar module was similar in size but only weighed about 8,600 pounds.)

The Space Shuttle was 56' high and 122' long. The payload bay was 60' long and 15' wide by 15' high (15' diameter). The Shuttle weighed about 172,000 pounds.

Surely if they could figure out how to get Lunar modules off the moon and back into space, and then link up with the Command  and Service module to fly back to Earth before dumping the "Service" part and using just the Command Module for the final descent.

Yes, the shuttle was much bigger. And that means it could also carry more.

They could have built the "space station" on the Moon's surface and used the Shuttles to resupply it.

Instead they have a little ISS sitting 400 kms above the Earth.

Then again - why bother ? It's not like they can grow anything on the Moon. It doesn't have any oil. (Or the USA would have been drilling and shipping oil from there 50 years ago !).

No mention of them finding any precious metals (gold, silver, platinum or lithium) or diamonds/rubies/emeralds on the Moon either.

So there really is no value in putting anything - or anyone - on the surface for more than a short picnic. And that's a pretty expensive picnic.

I wonder if Artemis 2 will carry pre-made "waving in the breeze" flags like the Apollo moon landers did ?

[Gobbler]

42 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

It was to the Russians!

link; Manhattan Project: Espionage and the Manhattan Project, 1940-1945

Plus many other sources!!

 

Right. I was hoping you could show me a reputable source instead of quoting nothing.

[Gobbler]

4 hours ago, Hummin said:

Please provide a link

Do I look like ChatGPT?  I gave you the venue. Find it yourself. 

 

No, I don't really care if you do or don't.