On 1/27/2026 at 4:03 PM, Stiddle Mump said:

They didn't have to have many in the know. It was so departmentalised (if that's the word).

More than their lives were worth to expose one of the biggest hoaxes of modern times. Armstrong looked as though his life and that of his family were at risk.

Indeed. It isn't that difficult to envision at all. There is documented proof, in France for example, of some people involved in politics being influenced to say or do (or refrain from saying or doing) things in exchange for their house mortgages being paid back in full. To think these things don't exist is naive to say the least: almost anybody can be bought and the buyers have unlimited funds.

On 2/2/2026 at 10:46 PM, rattlesnake said:

To think these things don't exist is naive to say the least: almost anybody can be bought and the buyers have unlimited funds.

Orwell's 1984 isn't only about surveillance.

It's also about lack of ability for critical thinking and believing authority on everything, even when authority conflicts with your own eyes.

7 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Orwell's 1984 isn't only about surveillance.

It's also about lack of ability for critical thinking and believing authority on everything, even when authority conflicts with your own eyes.

It's a good book, although in this category, I have a slight preference for Huxley's Brave New World. Published in the 1930s, it contains uncannily prescient elements, such as the establishment of a supranational New World Order, subversion of the masses through entertainment, prescription drugs, pornography and societal validation, and the segregation of dissidents who refuse the tech dystopia.

he Apollo moon landings (1969–1972) are supported by a vast, independent, and scientifically verified body of evidence that makes faking them technologically and practically impossible. The proof ranges from physical lunar samples to independent observations by rival nations.

Here are the main points that prove the moon landings were not a hoax:

1. Physical Evidence: Lunar Samples (Moon Rocks)

• 382kg of Moon Rocks: Apollo astronauts brought back 382 kilograms (842 pounds) of moon rocks, core samples, and dust.

• Unique Characteristics: These rocks are distinct from Earth rocks—they are entirely devoid of water, have tiny "glass spherules" (formed by meteorite impacts, not volcanic activity), and show evidence of high-speed micrometeorite bombardment.

• International Verification: These samples have been shared with scientists in dozens of countries for decades and have all been verified as having a lunar origin.

  BBC +4

2. Physical Evidence: Third-Party & Independent Imagery

• Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO): NASA’s LRO, in orbit since 2009, has captured high-resolution images of all Apollo landing sites, clearly showing the lunar modules, equipment, and even astronaut footprints.

• Independent International Imaging: Other nations' probes—Japan’s SELENE (2008), India’s Chandrayaan-1 and 2, and China’s Chang’e 2—have photographed or identified Apollo hardware and lander exhaust dust marks, providing independent verification.

  Wikipedia +1

3. Scientific Evidence: Laser Retroreflectors

• Mirrors on the Moon: Apollo 11, 14, and 15 missions left behind "lunar laser ranging retroreflectors" (mirrors).

• Operational Today: Scientists from the U.S., France, Germany, and Australia have fired lasers at these reflectors for over 50 years to measure the Earth-Moon distance to the centimeter, confirming they are still in place.

  Wikipedia +4

4. Third-Party Tracking and Monitoring

• Soviet Tracking: The United States' biggest rival during the Space Race, the Soviet Union, monitored the missions through its own intelligence and surveillance network. They knew the spacecraft was traveling to the Moon and would have exposed a hoax instantly.

• Independent Observers: Radio operators and observatories in several countries, including Britain's Jodrell Bank Observatory, tracked the flights to the Moon and back.

  Wikipedia +1

5. Debunking Common "Hoax" Claims

• The "Waving" Flag: The flag used a horizontal rod to keep it unfurled in a vacuum. It only rippled while the astronauts were actively planting it; it remained perfectly still afterwards.

• No Stars in Photos: Apollo missions landed during the lunar day. The sunlit surface was extremely bright, requiring short camera exposures that did not capture the faint stars in the black sky.

• Van Allen Radiation Belts: NASA knew of the radiation risk and designed the spacecraft with shielding, choosing a high-speed trajectory that minimized time spent in the most dangerous parts of the belts.

  BBC +4

6. The "Impossible to Fake" Argument

• Technology Limitations: In 1969, the technology required to fake the photographic lighting (recreating parallel sunlight) and the lunar surface shadows did not exist, especially not on the massive scale required to create hours of video.

• Massive Participation: Over 400,000 scientists, engineers, and workers were involved in the Apollo project. Keeping such a secret for over 50 years would be impossible.

• Multiple Missions: Conspiracy theorists often focus on Apollo 11, but there were six successful crewed landings.

  EBSCO +4

In summary, the physical, photographic, and scientific evidence—verified by the global scientific community and independent foreign powers—confirms that humans did indeed land on the Moon.

3 minutes ago, kwilco said:

he Apollo moon landings (1969–1972) are supported by a vast, independent, and scientifically verified body of evidence that makes faking them technologically and practically impossible. The proof ranges from physical lunar samples to independent observations by rival nations.

Here are the main points that prove the moon landings were not a hoax:

1. Physical Evidence: Lunar Samples (Moon Rocks)

• 382kg of Moon Rocks: Apollo astronauts brought back 382 kilograms (842 pounds) of moon rocks, core samples, and dust.

• Unique Characteristics: These rocks are distinct from Earth rocks—they are entirely devoid of water, have tiny "glass spherules" (formed by meteorite impacts, not volcanic activity), and show evidence of high-speed micrometeorite bombardment.

• International Verification: These samples have been shared with scientists in dozens of countries for decades and have all been verified as having a lunar origin.

  BBC +4

2. Physical Evidence: Third-Party & Independent Imagery

• Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO): NASA’s LRO, in orbit since 2009, has captured high-resolution images of all Apollo landing sites, clearly showing the lunar modules, equipment, and even astronaut footprints.

• Independent International Imaging: Other nations' probes—Japan’s SELENE (2008), India’s Chandrayaan-1 and 2, and China’s Chang’e 2—have photographed or identified Apollo hardware and lander exhaust dust marks, providing independent verification.

  Wikipedia +1

3. Scientific Evidence: Laser Retroreflectors

• Mirrors on the Moon: Apollo 11, 14, and 15 missions left behind "lunar laser ranging retroreflectors" (mirrors).

• Operational Today: Scientists from the U.S., France, Germany, and Australia have fired lasers at these reflectors for over 50 years to measure the Earth-Moon distance to the centimeter, confirming they are still in place.

  Wikipedia +4

4. Third-Party Tracking and Monitoring

• Soviet Tracking: The United States' biggest rival during the Space Race, the Soviet Union, monitored the missions through its own intelligence and surveillance network. They knew the spacecraft was traveling to the Moon and would have exposed a hoax instantly.

• Independent Observers: Radio operators and observatories in several countries, including Britain's Jodrell Bank Observatory, tracked the flights to the Moon and back.

  Wikipedia +1

5. Debunking Common "Hoax" Claims

• The "Waving" Flag: The flag used a horizontal rod to keep it unfurled in a vacuum. It only rippled while the astronauts were actively planting it; it remained perfectly still afterwards.

• No Stars in Photos: Apollo missions landed during the lunar day. The sunlit surface was extremely bright, requiring short camera exposures that did not capture the faint stars in the black sky.

• Van Allen Radiation Belts: NASA knew of the radiation risk and designed the spacecraft with shielding, choosing a high-speed trajectory that minimized time spent in the most dangerous parts of the belts.

  BBC +4

6. The "Impossible to Fake" Argument

• Technology Limitations: In 1969, the technology required to fake the photographic lighting (recreating parallel sunlight) and the lunar surface shadows did not exist, especially not on the massive scale required to create hours of video.

• Massive Participation: Over 400,000 scientists, engineers, and workers were involved in the Apollo project. Keeping such a secret for over 50 years would be impossible.

• Multiple Missions: Conspiracy theorists often focus on Apollo 11, but there were six successful crewed landings.

  EBSCO +4

In summary, the physical, photographic, and scientific evidence—verified by the global scientific community and independent foreign powers—confirms that humans did indeed land on the Moon.

Yeah, that's the problem with AI, they are all programmed to say this, even Alter.

Interesting points raised by Rogan.

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

Interesting points raised by Rogan.

It is important to understand the problems of arguing with an idiot.

Uploading Attachment...

6 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Interesting points raised by Rogan.

""Outside my window I can see stars—and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black void; the moon's presence is defined solely by the absence of stars." - check your sources

2 minutes ago, kwilco said:

It is important to understand the problems of arguing with an idiot.

Uploading Attachment...Unavailable

Incorrect. Disproving an invalid point is very easy.

4 minutes ago, kwilco said:

""Outside my window I can see stars—and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black void; the moon's presence is defined solely by the absence of stars." - check your sources

Are you trying to disprove Rogan's point that Michael Collins wrote that he saw stars in his 1974 book Carrying the Fire: An Astronaut's Journeys?

Excerpts:

"To add to the dramatic effect, we find we can see the stars again. We are in the shadow of the moon now, in darkness for the first time in three days, and the elusive stars have reappeared."

"My God, the stars are everywhere: above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars are bright and they are steady."

26 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Are you trying to disprove Rogan's point that Michael Collins wrote that he saw stars in his 1974 book Carrying the Fire: An Astronaut's Journeys?

Excerpts:

"To add to the dramatic effect, we find we can see the stars again. We are in the shadow of the moon now, in darkness for the first time in three days, and the elusive stars have reappeared."

"My God, the stars are everywhere: above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars are bright and they are steady."

do you genuinely not understand that??

34 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Incorrect. Disproving an invalid point is very easy.

No,, it isn't. Take your comments in point – I really can't be arsed to rebut your wild shortcomings in understanding even basic language – it seriously is not worth the effort. For instance, if I say you are wrong and the colour is red, not green, all you have to do is say, "No, it isn't," and I have to go into colour/light frequencies – it simply isn't worth it, and you really don't understand seeing stars from the moon – it is really not worth arguing with someone too simple to understand even the "quotes" he is trying to use.

12 minutes ago, kwilco said:

do you genuinely not understand that??

Understand what? Please explain it to me as if I were five years old – as you know, I am not the sharpest tool in the box.

9 minutes ago, kwilco said:

No,, it isn't. Take your comments in point – I really can't be arsed to rebut your wild shortcomings in understanding even basic language – it seriously is not worth the effort. For instance, if I say you are wrong and the colour is red, not green, all you have to do is say, "No, it isn't," and I have to go into colour/light frequencies – it simply isn't worth it, and you really don't understand seeing stars from the moon – it is really not worth arguing with someone too simple to understand even the "quotes" he is trying to use.

You have just produced 100 words, those could have been put to better use. As a superior mind, do you not have a moral duty to work for the greater good and parse what is right from wrong? If not, then why are you a regular contributor to the Off the Beaten Track subforum?

When Michael Collins says in the post-mission press conference that he never saw any stars, then states in a book five years later that he did, I see a discrepancy. What do you see?

15 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Understand what? Please explain it to me as if I were five years old – as you know, I am not the sharpest tool in the box.

Exactly. QED – I've already explained Brandolini's law, or the Bull<deleted> Asymmetry Principle, and you giving it are a perfect example.

"You have just produced 100 words; those could have been put to better use. As a superior mind, do you not have a moral duty to work for the greater good and parse what is right from wrong? If not, then why are you a regular contributor to the Off the Beaten Track subforum?" – and there you go!

The biggest issue with the moon landings over 50 years ago, using 3 computers that are lower spec than in the average modern washing machine, is why can the feat not be easily repeated in the 21st century, with vastly far superior tech, and knowledge, in every single field of expertise?

The usual excuse is always that NASA, and all the other space agencies, don't have the funding.

And for some reason, all the technical/scientific analysis from 50 odd years ago cannot be used in the 21st century, as somehow space has fundamentally changed over the last fifty years, in a universe that is estimated to being over 13 billion years old, on a planet which is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old, making it even more nonsenical than global warming, cough climate change!

Please describe one other human race defining feat, acheived 50 years ago, that is so difficult to repeat and delayed repeatidly, by USA, China, India, Japan, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates?

52 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Exactly. QED – I've already explained Brandolini's law, or the Bull<deleted> Asymmetry Principle, and you giving it are a perfect example.

"You have just produced 100 words; those could have been put to better use. As a superior mind, do you not have a moral duty to work for the greater good and parse what is right from wrong? If not, then why are you a regular contributor to the Off the Beaten Track subforum?" – and there you go!

You have it all sussed out, your mission in this thread is accomplished.

16 minutes ago, Jay0kay said:

The biggest issue with the moon landings over 50 years ago, using 3 computers that are lower spec than in the average modern washing machine, is why can the feat not be easily repeated in the 21st century, with vastly far superior tech, and knowledge, in every single field of expertise?

Indeed. Elementary logic. Yet you will be attacked by many who will go to extraordinary lengths to demonstrate that you are insane and an undesirable element of society, in a very hostile manner. Why? Because this issue is not about rationality, it is about belief. And shifting a belief is often harder than removing Excalibur from its stone.

8 hours ago, kwilco said:

he Apollo moon landings (1969–1972) are supported by a vast, independent, and scientifically verified body of evidence that makes faking them technologically and practically impossible. The proof ranges from physical lunar samples to independent observations by rival nations.

Here are the main points that prove the moon landings were not a hoax:

1. Physical Evidence: Lunar Samples (Moon Rocks)

• 382kg of Moon Rocks: Apollo astronauts brought back 382 kilograms (842 pounds) of moon rocks, core samples, and dust.

• Unique Characteristics: These rocks are distinct from Earth rocks—they are entirely devoid of water, have tiny "glass spherules" (formed by meteorite impacts, not volcanic activity), and show evidence of high-speed micrometeorite bombardment.

• International Verification: These samples have been shared with scientists in dozens of countries for decades and have all been verified as having a lunar origin.

  BBC +4

2. Physical Evidence: Third-Party & Independent Imagery

• Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO): NASA’s LRO, in orbit since 2009, has captured high-resolution images of all Apollo landing sites, clearly showing the lunar modules, equipment, and even astronaut footprints.

• Independent International Imaging: Other nations' probes—Japan’s SELENE (2008), India’s Chandrayaan-1 and 2, and China’s Chang’e 2—have photographed or identified Apollo hardware and lander exhaust dust marks, providing independent verification.

  Wikipedia +1

3. Scientific Evidence: Laser Retroreflectors

• Mirrors on the Moon: Apollo 11, 14, and 15 missions left behind "lunar laser ranging retroreflectors" (mirrors).

• Operational Today: Scientists from the U.S., France, Germany, and Australia have fired lasers at these reflectors for over 50 years to measure the Earth-Moon distance to the centimeter, confirming they are still in place.

  Wikipedia +4

4. Third-Party Tracking and Monitoring

• Soviet Tracking: The United States' biggest rival during the Space Race, the Soviet Union, monitored the missions through its own intelligence and surveillance network. They knew the spacecraft was traveling to the Moon and would have exposed a hoax instantly.

• Independent Observers: Radio operators and observatories in several countries, including Britain's Jodrell Bank Observatory, tracked the flights to the Moon and back.

  Wikipedia +1

5. Debunking Common "Hoax" Claims

• The "Waving" Flag: The flag used a horizontal rod to keep it unfurled in a vacuum. It only rippled while the astronauts were actively planting it; it remained perfectly still afterwards.

• No Stars in Photos: Apollo missions landed during the lunar day. The sunlit surface was extremely bright, requiring short camera exposures that did not capture the faint stars in the black sky.

• Van Allen Radiation Belts: NASA knew of the radiation risk and designed the spacecraft with shielding, choosing a high-speed trajectory that minimized time spent in the most dangerous parts of the belts.

  BBC +4

6. The "Impossible to Fake" Argument

• Technology Limitations: In 1969, the technology required to fake the photographic lighting (recreating parallel sunlight) and the lunar surface shadows did not exist, especially not on the massive scale required to create hours of video.

• Massive Participation: Over 400,000 scientists, engineers, and workers were involved in the Apollo project. Keeping such a secret for over 50 years would be impossible.

• Multiple Missions: Conspiracy theorists often focus on Apollo 11, but there were six successful crewed landings.

  EBSCO +4

In summary, the physical, photographic, and scientific evidence—verified by the global scientific community and independent foreign powers—confirms that humans did indeed land on the Moon.

How did they bring back rocks if they didn't ever go?

It has been said time and time again that neither China and especially Russia ever denounced the landings!

That has to be a clincher given the space rivalry the US and Russia!

15 hours ago, Jay0kay said:

The biggest issue with the moon landings over 50 years ago, using 3 computers that are lower spec than in the average modern washing machine, is why can the feat not be easily repeated in the 21st century, with vastly far superior tech, and knowledge, in every single field of expertise?

The usual excuse is always that NASA, and all the other space agencies, don't have the funding.

And for some reason, all the technical/scientific analysis from 50 odd years ago cannot be used in the 21st century, as somehow space has fundamentally changed over the last fifty years, in a universe that is estimated to being over 13 billion years old, on a planet which is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old, making it even more nonsenical than global warming, cough climate change!

Please describe one other human race defining feat, acheived 50 years ago, that is so difficult to repeat and delayed repeatidly, by USA, China, India, Japan, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates?

There are many excellent articles available that are able to explain the US not returning to the moon. Unfortunately, not one (or ALL) of those articles can guarantee you undestand.

On 3/16/2026 at 6:29 PM, kwilco said:

""Outside my window I can see stars—and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black void; the moon's presence is defined solely by the absence of stars." - check your sources

Put simply you can't see the stars in daytime on earth or on the moon.

So the current moon shots are more elaborate hoaxes?

Why do they keep doing this?

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

So the current moon shots are more elaborate hoaxes?

Why do they keep doing this?

You're asking the right questions. Tag me if you need assistance in your awakening.

6 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

You're asking the right questions. Tag me if you need assistance in your awakening.

So you think the current moonshot is a hoax too?

So explain how each is fake/a hoax...

59 minutes ago, kwilco said:

So you think the current moonshot is a hoax too?

So explain how each is fake/a hoax...

What is there to say? Looking forward to the CGI, let's hope it's better quality than the space station one.

5 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

What is there to say? Looking forward to the CGI, let's hope it's better quality than the space station one.

"What is there to say?" - Yes or no is what there is to say...

So you believe the current moon programme is fake? Yes or no?

How about the Chinese programme?

Why do you think they do so many hoaxes?

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

"What is there to say?" - Yes or no is what there is to say...

So you believe the current moon programme is fake? Yes or no?

Of course.

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

How about the Chinese programme?

Why do you think they do so many hoaxes?

Billions are funnelled into these programmes. Taxpayer money, by the way. Those same taxpayers who are then made to watch in awe at the spectacle unfolding on their screens.

5 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Of course.

Billions are funnelled into these programmes. Taxpayer money, by the way. Those same taxpayers who are then made to watch in awe at the spectacle unfolding on their screens.

6 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Of course.

Billions are funnelled into these programmes. Taxpayer money, by the way. Those same taxpayers who are then made to watch in awe at the spectacle unfolding on their screens.

"Billions are funnelled into these programmes. " - to what end? It makes no sense

Are you saying all the launches never happened and the launches planned in th US and CHina are also fake? How about the crowds watching?

19 minutes ago, kwilco said:

"Billions are funnelled into these programmes. " - to what end? It makes no sense

Are you saying all the launches never happened and the launches planned in th US and CHina are also fake? How about the crowds watching?

Oh there definitely are contraptions lifting off and travelling beyond visual range.