The flag didn't blow. That's about the easiest thing to find on Google -why it looked like it was blowing.

The one key point you need to ask yourself... and put yourself in the world at that time - the peak of the cold war between the USA and the USSR.

The USSR was more than capable of knowing whether or not the Americans landed on the moon. They never said the Americans didn't do it. Not once. At the peak of the mistrust, competition, fear, and even hatred between the two nations. The American's most bitter yet technically astute rival did not challenge the moon landings.

If the moon landing was staged, why didn't the Soviets say anything?

I would think the opposite, in that its suspicious that the soviets didn't claim it was fake.. everyone would have expected them to, whether it was real or not.

If they would have claimed it was fake, they would have had to have provided proof or been shown to be liars.

At that point in history, being shown to be liars would not have been a good thing for them.

By the same token, if they could have proved the Americans didn't land on the Moon, they would have.

That's the best explanation I've heard yet, of proof that the moon landing was real.

They didn't need to break down film. They could have and almost certainly did track the vehicles all the way from Earth to the Moon.

They were at least as technically capable as the Americans. They almost got there first, but for some unfortunate rocket failures and an untimely death in their program.

Play Devil's Advocate on something that might reasonably be off. This one isn't. Not by any stretch, and not only for this proof, but this is the only proof needed.

JFK. Chemtrails. Sure. There's room for discussion on those. There's clearly something odd with each.

Not so the moon landing. I think the Soviets not saying anything, not proving that the USA didn't do it, is proof that the Americans did do it.

Bigfoot... really?

Moon landings...really? Who again was responsible for the overflow and subsequent control of Russia, post Czar again? The Russians were and have always been in on it. Just like Hitler was a prized resource, and was paid after losing the war, nothing presented in the news or media can be used as support. The corruption has not spread it's tentacles around the world ny the 60s?

You go on shilling...I mean believing all you want. Sufficient physical evidence has been released to definitively know whether your stated position is true or false.

I'm reasonable. I like to think. I like evidence. I like things to "add up". I like things to make sense in the real world, a world in which not everyone is "in" on all conspiracies and in which very powerful entities of multiple different factions conspire against each other.

I don't budge on widespread chemtrailing from commercial airliners, either. Too big, too much logistics, too many civilians to keep quiet.

Limited military chemtrailing, that's a totally different matter entirely.

JFK, for the longest time I bought the official story. Now... if I were more interested in the topic, I'd research it more but definitely open mind to evidence that's easy to get to.

Bigfoot, for all the drama and energy and talk and effort that so many people have put into it, there's not one shred of credible evidence. Seems extraordinarily unlikely.

Tell is about 3 things real quick, since you claim to be "in the know."

September 11, 2001

Sandy Hook Elementary

Boston Bombing

Your response is eagerly awaited.

Nah. I might respond to those topics in threads created for them, though.

not everything's cut and dry.

Quite true, not everything is cut and dried. Something like JFK's assassination or the full details of 9/11, for example, continue to have open questions.

But the moon landings are cut and dried. We landed on the moon. The mountain of evidence is overwhelming, and every key piece of "evidence" suggesting otherwise has been repeatedly and thoroughly dismantled to the point of absurdity.

The moon landings happened.

There are people who continue to believe that it was a hoax, of course, but those are usually the folks who are inclined to believe anything provided it isn't "the official narrative," because to them, "the official narrative" is always, without exception, a lie.

Those people are not credible in any way, shape or form.

Show us the original footage of man's first step on the moon. Arguably the most important video ever shot by man, yet NOT A AOUL HAS SEEN IT, and ITS BEEN OFFICIALLY DECLARED LOST and NOT A SOUL HAS EVER SEEN IT. Now why is that?

Also, we were promised clear images of the surface of the moon with the latest probe, the Surveyor. All that was returned was low res garbage that showed nothing. Why did the rover tracks disappear just outside the East and West border of the 25 mile resolution shot?

It's incredibly damning, and absolute PROOF the moon landings were hoaxes. One of tye biggest fuckups to date, yet the shills are the ones who still fight it. Processing it's "cut and dry" proof. Quite the contrary, my friend.

For anyone who still remains in the fence, give explaining this a try. I truly wish you luck. http://youtu.be/MW4_TmEEGK8. Jarrah Whites analysis, even while being an amateur removes all possibility of the moon landings being real. They staged this, just as they've staged the beginnings of every war, 9/11, Sandy Hoax, Aurora, Boston, the Navy Yard....The list is endless. We didn't buy it when it happened, and now we have proof that these initial assumptions are absolutely correct. Shill on, but know we know it's all staged.

After looking into Kubrick possibly filming a fake moon landing, I think if it was faked, it was for the "worst case scenario" reel. If the landing went wrong in any way, just roll the b-reel and voilà, no national failure in the eyes of a Cold War standoff. Excellent PR contingency plan, and NASA is all about redundancy and contingency plans.

They ran the worst case scenario reels, so what does that tell you?

The flag didn't blow.

watch the videos where it is blowing about insanely, not the common twitch video.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon

This is a huge bust to the official story (lie).

The mountain of evidence we actually went there is staggering, and frankly, it's almost an insult to human ingenuity to think we didn't actually go there.

It's almost an insult to human ingenuity to think we didn't actually go there.

Actually, it's a testament to human ingenuity that NASA could convince so many people that they had the technical knowhow in the 1960s to safely send manned spacecraft through the fatal-to-humans radiation levels of the Van Allen belts - something that is still impossible with today's technology.

And... it's a testament to human credulity that so many people believed it, and still believe it.

The Van-allen belt has been repeatedly explained.

The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners. The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them.The command module's inner structure was an aluminum "sandwich" consisting of a welded aluminium inner skin, a thermally bonded honeycomb core, and a thin aluminium "face sheet". The steel honeycomb core and outer face sheets were thermally bonded to the inner skin.In fact, the astronauts' overall exposure was dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.

So no, it's not impossible to fly past the belts. And again, I find it's like looking at the Panama canal or the ISS and going "meh, it's not that impressive".

Show me a biological organism with similar radiation sensitivity to humans that has passed through the belts and made it out alive, and then we csn talk of the lack of harm the radiation presents. As of right now, you're selling a story that is ONLY backed by the same fools who decided to poorly fake the Apollo moon landings. That is to say, not at all credible.

Show me a biological organism with similar radiation sensitivity to humans that has passed through the belts and made it out alive,

So what you're saying is "show me some other mission that went that far out for no real reason but to show something we'd already proved". That's a terrible argument. And again, all of your knowledge of the belts seems to be coming from outdated information about it, since out knowledge of the belts has changes. On top of all this, you do know that the astronauts only went through it for a small amount of time, and the capsule was made using a aluminum "sandwich" to help absorb some of the radiation right?

same fools who decided to poorly fake the Apollo moon landings

Those same fools who actually studied the belts, instead of just using outdated information from conspiracy sites? Yeah, you could have thought that out more. When it comes to space, NASA is kind of an expert. To ignore their evidence is like trying to figure out who is buried in a sarcophagus without reading the hieroglyphs; in the sense that it ignores a huge amount of important information.

[deleted]

There were many Apollo missions, not just one.

Also, do you not think this very radiation is the reason they are not in a hurry to send more astronauts there?

FTFY, but Yes, this is the reason why only unmanned craft have landed on the moon.

[deleted]

Yes, but it's a belief based on the balance of probabilities, not absolute certainty. We should always to be open to changing our minds when presented with compelling evidence.

On that subject, have you read this?

http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

It is a scientific, extremely compelling analysis of the evidence, and to my knowledge NASA has ignored its conclusions rather trying to refute them.

[deleted]

I think you have a commendable approach. If you find a convincing rebuttal of the stereoparallax research, please let me know. If you want to delve into the studio shots of the moon landing, look into the close relationship that Stanley Kubrick had with NASA.

Thank you for providing some VERY compelling evidence proving the Apollo "missions" for the hoax they were.

Humans have not crossed through the Van Allen belts...and WILL NOT; unless they either figure out how to launch thousands of pounds of lead shielding or come up with an entirely different means of space travel (such as folding space-time).

I find it hilarious that anybody could, in this day and age, believe that the "moon landings" were not a hoax! I believe "we" landed on the moon--but "we" was an unmanned craft.

This is a perfect example of how upset people get when you prove, beyond any doubt, that their "ingrained indoctrination" has been a myth their entire lives. I know it certainly shook me up. You can't really expect people to be logical about this type of thing.

This photo analysis is yet another nail in the coffin. We didn't go to the moon. We will likely never go to the moon. At least for many, many more generations. The hero Ms. Sally Ride said it best. When asked what it would take in Tue mid 80s (1987 to be specific) to go back to the moon with their much more "modern" technology? The answer, 23 goddamn years. We couldn't do it today if we tried. But magically back in the 60s, we could do ANYTHING (with a little hollywod magic, that is). Just like we do today.

And Russia dumps enormous amounts of resources and effort into it. But when America succeeds first, "Fuck it, kommrad. Shut it down (their entire space program)." It doesn't work like that. Did they throw in the toweall st Dr we beat them at other milestones? Did we, when they beat us? They figured out exactly what we did. It was impossible given our technology. A certain failure. And just look to A13. The Tom Hanks version. Absolute fiction that was coincidentally based on absolute fiction.

So my explanation about the Van Allen belts is just going to be ignored? I kinda explained it in a previous comment.

Why don't you engage your brain just a little bit?

I'm stating that NASA didn't put a man on the moon, so why do you think I'm going to take seriously your NASA "data" about the fabricated radiation exposure of the Apollo mission astronauts on the way to the moon? Do you genuinely not see the problem here?

Firstly, if you're going to make these claims, you can't just ignore evidence the disagrees with you. NASA is kinda the expert on space, so it makes sense refer to their knowledge . Also, are you really claiming that NASA faked the reading too? Just because of the "super-dangerous radiation belts that aren't actually as dangerous as you think"? I seems far more likely that you're just wrong about the beslts, but refuse to admit that. Secondly, as I pointed out before, they were only in it for a short time which lowered the risk, and they also specifically built the capsules to be less affected by the belts (and no, you don't need tons of lead lining, it's not that dangerous). Thirdly, despite me explaining exactly how this is not as much of an issue as you think, you don't answer me, and then keep using the same argument.

You really don't get it, do you? NASA has never sent a human into the Van Allen belts.

hey, did you ever ask that guy for proof he lived in sandy hook? why are you afraid of the truth

I made a long post about my discussions with /u/wafflesareforever in /r/conspiracyv2. I don't think douches have access to the sub.

No, I don;t really get what you're trying to argue. You're just using circular logic, and saying "because they faked the landing, we can't use anything they say as evidence". This is a terrible argument, and one I tried to point out as being terrible. Also, I'll leave you with this thought. If the landing was faked, why didn't the Russians jump on the chance to call out the US on their bullshit? Don't forget that this was during the height of the Cold War.

How many times did your mother drop you as a child?

It's been 40 years and no one has been able to go back there despite huge advances in all pertinent fields. I can't bring myself to believe it.

Because it's still absurdly expensive to do, and we don't really have a great reason to go back right now.

Yes we do, but it's usually to the ISS. We currently use the ISS for many experiments, and although it's still expensive, It's far cheaper than sending someone to the moon. For the record, I would totally want to see us return to the moon, but we'd either need a really good reason, or we'd have to wait until it become cheaper to do.

It's not lack of ability but lack of desire.

NASA doesn't care about putting humans on the moon any more. They did that a bunch of times. Now they're aiming for Mars.

If there were a way to make a shitload of money by putting humans on the moon, private enterprises like SpaceX would be shooting for that. And they'd get there.

I don't think so. If we did go in the 60s/70s, then I'd expect we've been going back on the sly and probably have bases there now. $9T disappearances from the DoD has to go somewhere.

Why? What's the point of putting bases on the moon? What is the political, economic, or military benefit?

I don't know, research and preparation if nothing else I suppose, but if I were the president and it could be done, I'd do it. I think it would be very foolish not to. There was no tangible benefit to going to the moon in the first place, really, or at least returning as many times as we did, if you believe what they say about it's make-up and why we haven't continued to go. But like i said, I don't believe it anyhow.

I were the president and it could be done, I'd do it.

As President, you have to get your budget through Congress. If you want to budget billions for a moon landing, you're going to have to justify why that's money better spent than on, say, feeding the poor, healing the sick, or padding the pockets of Monsanto and Comcast executives... depending on who's been bribed by whom recently.

There was no tangible benefit to going to the moon in the first place

There was. Proving we could do it. Beating the Soviets there (propaganda was hugely important during the cold war, far more than it is today). Expanding scientific knowledge. Developing new science that the defense industry and commercial industries could use.

We have all those things now, that it took to get to the moon.

Now we need to up our game another notch to go to Mars. That is why Mars is the target now and the moon isn't.

As President, you have to get your budget through Congress.

If you say so! That's not a serious argument, is it? How many trillions have to go missing before we say this might not be true? Also, the propaganda argument cuts both ways - if it were really so important, we'd have lied about it if we couldn't do it. Either way, it shouldn't work to convince someone of anything.

If you say so!

You need to learn more about how the world works. Case in point:

if it were really so important, we'd have lied about it if we couldn't do it

If we lied about it, the Soviets would have called us on our lie.

I don't think that's necessarily so, but if you think that's evidence, ok.

We have the ability, but not the desire to put the money in.

Take a couple hours to read this link - it made me rethink everything I thought I knew on this subject:

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

There are a lot of inconsistencies and errors in that page. For example;

but after a full forty years, the Soviets apparently still haven't quite figured out how we did it.

Yeah they did (not sure how they wouldn't), it's just that at that point there wasn't really a reason for them to go, especially considering it was a stupidly expensive undertaking.

So if they could pull it off back then, then just about anyone should be able to do it now.

They can, it's just stupidly expensive to do, which is kinda why they don't do it. They'd either need to find a way to make it way cheaper, or need a really good reason.

Why? Why has no nation ever duplicated, or even attempted to duplicate, this miraculous feat?

Cost, cost, cost. Almost all of his arguments can be explained through this.

Why has no other nation even sent a manned spacecraft to orbit the Moon?

For the record; Japan, China, Russia, the EU, India, and the US have all sent lunar orbiters, and China, the US and Russia all sent landers. That fact appears to be entirely made up on his part.

Maybe, you say, it’s just too damned expensive. But the 1960s were not a particularly prosperous time in U.S. history and we were engaged in an expensive Cold War throughout the decade

Where does the author think the funding came from aside from said "particularly expensive cold war" which was known for massive budgets?

the furthest that any astronaut from any country has traveled from the surface of the Earth is about 400 miles.

What exactly is there past 400 miles in terms of the space between earth and the moon, that's important to go to, aside from the moon?

As it turns out, however, NASA doesn’t actually have all of that Moonwalking footage anymore.

The tapes thing has been explained repeatedly.

Point is that a lot of what this article mentions is often either blatantly wrong, ignores any other explanations, makes flawed conclusions and flawed logic, and other issues.

Side note: Here is a list of independent third parties who tracked to landings.

but after a full forty years, the Soviets apparently still haven't quite figured out how we did it.

That's about the dumbest thing I've read on the topic.

The Soviets knew exactly how the Americans did it. They were working on it, too.

Their lead engineer - best and brightest - became gravely ill and died during their program, and they suffered a couple of catastrophic rocket failures.

If not for those two things, the Soviets might have done it first.

I totally agree. I have no idea where the author came up with that claim.

Their lead engineer - best and brightest - became gravely ill and died during their program, and they suffered a couple of catastrophic rocket failures.

So this contradicts the other explanation above, that it cost too much. Now you're saying they did spend the resources on it, but that because their lead scientist dies they weren't able to achieve what the U.S. did?

Both are weak explanations for the Soviets not going to the Moon.

I never said it cost too much. I said there's no benefit in spending the money now, after we already did it 6 times.

There is documented history and a documentary on the Soviet moon program that echoes what I said.

I was referring to the comment you were replying to when I mentioned cost . . .

The two of you came up with three reasons why he Soviets didn't go to the moon:

1) Cost them too much

2) The lead engineer died during the program

3) they suffered a couple of catastrophic rocket failures

I just don't find those explanations convincing.

1) If any country didn't have to worry about "cost" it was the Soviets. They had a command economy and prioritized directing resources to scientific and military pursuits like this.

2) I don't see how an entire program's fortunes could rest on one person.

3) The U.S. had rocket failure too but learned from them . . . I don't see why the Soviet scientists couldn't learn from their failures as well.

Unlimited funds. As expected, the shills are strong in this thread. A pity they are not also strong in their arguments. Any of them.

I never included cost as a factor for the Soviets not going there. If you're interested in discussing that, you should probably respond to whomever did.

2) I don't see how an entire program's fortunes could rest on one person.

The entire program's didn't rest on one person. But he was important. His death coupled with the rocket failures set them back - caused delays. They kept trying and only stopped after the Americans did it. Though I think they put a rover up there shortly after the Americans put men there.

You can start learning more about the Soviet moon program on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_programme including some impressive firsts:

In 1959, the Luna 2 mission successfully hit the moon's surface, becoming the first man-made object to reach the Moon.

Luna 3 rounded the Moon later that year, and returned the first photographs of its far side, which can never be seen from Earth.

Luna 9 became the first probe to achieve a soft landing on another planetary body (February 1966). It returned five black and white stereoscopic circular panoramas, which were the first close-up shots of the Lunar surface.

For the record; Japan, China, Russia, the EU, India, and the US have all sent lunar orbiters, and China, the US and Russia all sent landers. That fact appears to be entirely made up on his part.

He wrote "manned" spacecraft, not just orbiters and landers.

Cost, cost, cost. Almost all of his arguments can be explained through this.

But why can't a centrally controlled government, like China or the Soviet Union, direct resources and personnel to this endeavor? They were able to direct resources to other things.

What exactly is there past 400 miles in terms of the space between earth and the moon, that's important to go to, aside from the moon?

Why not travel into space and then come back? Why stick around Earth? His point is the Van Allen belt and the radiation make it difficult to go farther out.

The tapes thing has been explained repeatedly.

Having an explanation doesn't mean it's a good excuse.

He wrote "manned" spacecraft, not just orbiters and landers.

I misread that to be just spacecraft. And I've explained why no other nation sent manned spacecraft after anyways (cost).

But why can't a centrally controlled government, like China or the Soviet Union, direct resources and personnel to this endeavour? They were able to direct resources to other things.

I don't think you realize how expensive the missions were. To quote NASA; "In 2009, NASA held a symposium on project costs which presented an estimate of the Apollo program costs in 2005 dollars as roughly $170 billion."

Why not travel into space and then come back? Why stick around Earth? His point is the Van Allen belt and the radiation make it difficult to go farther out.

Because what point is there? We have the ISS and we use it for many things. If you keep going, there is nothing of interest until you reach the moon. There is no reason to go 600 miles out and come back. Plus, as I explained before, the Van Allen belts are not actually as dangerous as you think. Apollo missions were only in them for a short amount of time, and the capsules were built knowing the possible dangers. In fact, the astronauts radiation level "was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity."

Having an explanation doesn't mean it's a good excuse.

Fair enough, I just didn't want to have to put in a whole other paragraph, as the explanation was starting to get quite long as it was. In retrospect, I should have just hyperlinked this.

Apollo missions were only in them for a short amount of time, and the capsules were built knowing the possible dangers. In fact, the astronauts radiation level "was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity."

But if the Apollo missions were faked then this information was likely faked. The author made a good point that the radiation was a major concern for the planners and the evidence that the Apollo missions dealt with the radiation is not convincing.

The problem is that you've just discounted evidence based on an assumption that is only possibly provable if you ignore said evidence/source. Fact is, that when it comes to space, NASA is going to come up one way or another because they are the experts in the field. To ignore that evidence is like looking at a sarcophagus, and making an assumption about who is in it without even reading the hieroglyphs. Also, I'd like to know the sources he used to show that it was impossible to pass the belt.

If I recall (it's been a while since I read the entire Moondoggle piece) he uses one of the original scientific analysis discussing the difficulties of going to the moon (from the early 1960s maybe)? So in the beginning they laid out the difficulties and one of the biggest difficulties was encasing the ship in lead to protect against radiation but the extra weight required huge fuel requirements. Then there is the issue that the spacesuits and lander do not seem like they could protect against radiation on the surface of the moon (not to mention heat and cold extremes) and the idea of the lander rendevouzing back up with the ship seems like one hell of a technological feat. Then of course there are all the anomalies with the footage etc. that raise red flags about it being false.

he uses one of the original scientific analysis discussing the difficulties of going to the moon (from the early 1960s maybe)?

The problem being that those results are clearly proven to be not entirly correct. Fact is, it turns out the belts are not as dangerous as the author seems to think (although they can be if you stay in them too long). Also, they specifically designed to spacecraft to be somewhat resistant to the radiation, but didn't' need to use lead see here;

• "The command module's inner structure was an aluminum "sandwich" consisting of a welded aluminium inner skin, a thermally bonded honeycomb core, and a thin aluminium "face sheet". The steel honeycomb core and outer face sheets were thermally bonded to the inner skin."

and the idea of the lander rendevouzing back up with the ship seems like one hell of a technological feat.

That's because it is. It's just like how it's also really hard to dock with space stations like the ISS.

Then of course there are all the anomalies with the footage etc.

Most of them are easily explained actually.

So yes, it appears he's using outdated sources to try and prove his arguments, which is not a great sign. Also, you might find this to be interesting.

If that's true, why hasn't another human EVER passed them since. The stereoscopic analysis is more than enough to solidly prove that the moon landings were pure fiction. As with 9/11, Sandy Hoax, Boston, this was also a massive scam. The money was spent elsewhere. Before unlimited black budgets were the norm.

If that's true, why hasn't another human EVER passed them since

Because unless you're going to the moon or even further, there is no point in doing that, and I've already explained why we aren't going to the moon any time soon.

The stereoscopic analysis is more than enough to solidly prove that the moon landings were pure fiction.

Honestly, the stereoscopic evidence is at least a decent argument compared to many of the others (like Van Allen belts, which base their arguments on outdated information). That being said though, there is a pretty good explanation of the issues inherent in his arguments here (it's too long to paste in here, which is why I linked it), so even the parallax argument is fairly flawed.

As with 9/11, Sandy Hoax, Boston, this was also a massive scam.

As much as I disagree with that statement, we're talking about the moon landing here, so I'm not going to get into these.

The money was spent elsewhere. Before unlimited black budgets were the norm.

Uh, this was kinda the heyday of unlimited black budgets, so I have no idea why they would have to go through some weirdly overcomplicated process to do it. Are you really going to claim that they spent all this money, but instead secretly sent it to black projects? Because that makes absolutely no sense.

Very interesting ideas and am enjoyable read. http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html Personally, I doubt we were ever there.

The flag blowing sounds interesting, but they did go to the moon.

The flag blowing sounds interesting

Nah, it just had wires in it to make it stand out from the pole, because there was no wind to make it flap.

The flag was constructed specially for the moon's surface. A taut wire runs through the fabric along its top, allowing it to stand erect like a windswept flag on Earth. Without the wire, the flag would droop like any other flag hanging in space. The astronauts simply cause the flapping themselves by struggling to plant the flagpole into the ground and bumping it around.

I think some of the photos where staged in a studio to make them look better than taking them on the moon.

Stanley Kubrick: The Moon Landing (Pt. 1)

I watched Room 237 with my wife last night and it is plainly obvious that Kubrick filmed some or all of the footage we saw. The only real question for me after seeing all the clues was did we actually go, which is weird because I've always thought we did go. Now, I just don't know. I mean, why would you stealthily admit to that if it was just some extra padding for the TV audience?

Have you read through this?

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

No, I hadn't, very interesting. Kind of makes videos like this that I've seen seem to ring a bit more true:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Anch44yEfU

Yeah there are multiple parts to it as well - by the end, a pretty strong case is made (in my opinion). Nothing about the moon landings, space race, or the subsequent decades adds up. As usual, we were not told much (if any) of the truth.

I think we landed on the moon, something was already there, and that something said don't come back.

Right. So we went there, something said, "stop that shit", and we then landed there 5 more times and tried more than that.

OP asked for thoughts, those are mine.

watch the Apollo 11 press conference, its a funeral service, no happiness or joy from the three astronauts what so ever. they should have been smiling and telling their story with enthusiasm. they had the biggest story of the twentieth century to tell.

they sit there acting like their pet dog got run over.

that is very telling.

OP, do you really want to know the truth? Read this whole series:

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

Not saying the moonlanding was staged but I think they did go there before because I think technology has been advanced longer than the general public realize. Is it possible the higher ups went there ... Whatever was secret they got and accomplished and then years later they let the ppl who went to the moon be the "first" in mainstream

I love the moon landing theories. Most of them are terrible and lead to those who like to debunk the moon hoax with very little ammo to throw at you.

I hope it's okay I plug a relative website I enjoy.

Primarily amateurs circle-jerking over the worst visual evidence nasa has to offer, with some knowledgable people discussing science as well, more or less dominating the scene.

Plenty of misguided folks there, but some intelligence as well. They discuss plenty of other topics that would be at home here, as well as some more flimsy subjects.

They really did go to the moon. Follow the money and add it up. Literally do the math.

JFK. Chemtrails. Sure. There's room for discussion on those. There's clearly something odd with each.

Not so the moon landing. I think the Soviets not saying anything, not proving that the USA didn't do it, is proof that the Americans did do it.

Bigfoot... really?

There are a lot of inconsistencies and errors in that page. For example;

but after a full forty years, the Soviets apparently still haven't quite figured out how we did it.

Yeah they did (not sure how they wouldn't), it's just that at that point there wasn't really a reason for them to go, especially considering it was a stupidly expensive undertaking.

So if they could pull it off back then, then just about anyone should be able to do it now.

They can, it's just stupidly expensive to do, which is kinda why they don't do it. They'd either need to find a way to make it way cheaper, or need a really good reason.

Why? Why has no nation ever duplicated, or even attempted to duplicate, this miraculous feat?

Cost, cost, cost. Almost all of his arguments can be explained through this.

Why has no other nation even sent a manned spacecraft to orbit the Moon?

For the record; Japan, China, Russia, the EU, India, and the US have all sent lunar orbiters, and China, the US and Russia all sent landers. That fact appears to be entirely made up on his part.

Maybe, you say, it’s just too damned expensive. But the 1960s were not a particularly prosperous time in U.S. history and we were engaged in an expensive Cold War throughout the decade

Where does the author think the funding came from aside from said "particularly expensive cold war" which was known for massive budgets?

the furthest that any astronaut from any country has traveled from the surface of the Earth is about 400 miles.

What exactly is there past 400 miles in terms of the space between earth and the moon, that's important to go to, aside from the moon?

As it turns out, however, NASA doesn’t actually have all of that Moonwalking footage anymore.

The tapes thing has been explained repeatedly.

Point is that a lot of what this article mentions is often either blatantly wrong, ignores any other explanations, makes flawed conclusions and flawed logic, and other issues.

Side note: Here is a list of independent third parties who tracked to landings.

not everything's cut and dry.

Quite true, not everything is cut and dried. Something like JFK's assassination or the full details of 9/11, for example, continue to have open questions.

But the moon landings are cut and dried. We landed on the moon. The mountain of evidence is overwhelming, and every key piece of "evidence" suggesting otherwise has been repeatedly and thoroughly dismantled to the point of absurdity.

The moon landings happened.

There are people who continue to believe that it was a hoax, of course, but those are usually the folks who are inclined to believe anything provided it isn't "the official narrative," because to them, "the official narrative" is always, without exception, a lie.

Those people are not credible in any way, shape or form.

I made a long post about my discussions with /u/wafflesareforever in /r/conspiracyv2. I don't think douches have access to the sub.

I never said it cost too much. I said there's no benefit in spending the money now, after we already did it 6 times.

There is documented history and a documentary on the Soviet moon program that echoes what I said.

If that's true, why hasn't another human EVER passed them since. The stereoscopic analysis is more than enough to solidly prove that the moon landings were pure fiction. As with 9/11, Sandy Hoax, Boston, this was also a massive scam. The money was spent elsewhere. Before unlimited black budgets were the norm.