Well, if you want an outright conspiracy angle about why we never returned to the Moon, it's because we were told to go away. There was somebody already up there, watching us and our efforts.

The real Apollo conspiracy has nothing to do with us not going there, it is to do with what was already there.

I hope the Lunar X Prize has a live stream then!

http://lunar.xprize.org/

I just finished reading 'Abundance', by Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler this morning. Your conspiracy mind will work overdrive reading between the lines in that book. Lots of names in the tech world, and their connections to MIT, Harvard, Stanford and Yale.

Any take aways from the book you can share?

A few:

• Invest in the companies that are in the industries mentioned

• Big Oil is "partnering" with renewable/green energy to basically own all energy output

• Photosynthesis is being manufactured in labs to produce algae fuels

• There should never be a need to cull the human population at mankind's current state because the ability to grow food in non-farm environments is only beginning to be tapped into

• People must learn computers and educate themselves on scientific concepts to be relevant as employable persons in the '1st world' over the next 50 years

• Most of these innovators have been connected to money and had life's basic stressors taken care of for most of their lives, if not all of their lives. This fact needs to be pointed out.

• The black market is only vaguely glossed over, but it is a major part of society, growth and limited to growth.

Don't jump to conclusions but there are a number of witnesses and speculations that suggest that our Moon harbours something other than random cuspids and barren wastelands.

My favourite tesimony is this guy - Karl Wolfe

Relevant reading material:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Somebody-Else-Moon-George-Leonard/dp/1522838678

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ring-makers-Saturn-Norman-R-Bergrun/dp/0946270333/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1498592323&sr=1-1&keywords=ringmakers+of+saturn

[removed]

I never heard about this that's awesome. I know its going to be good stuff when that site is linked

Elon musk is set on going to colonize mars.

Colonize it with what, CGI?

This totally looks real, totally.

Is this when they decided to just start playing launches in reverse to get the landing shots?

Ha ha excellent :)

Nice meme, but why do the clouds from the exhaust not match when playing the video in reverse?

Launch twice. Play second one backwards for landing.

The landings on the ocean appear to be legitimate landings. Although I timed the decent rate from the cloud ceiling and its impossible to be a rocket the size they say it is. I do not believe they have showed one enter from earth orbit or does this exist?

So Stage 2 is around 160KM when they cut into the Stage 1 descent feed. Notice this one at 1:50 seconds

Cloud ceiling in Florida is 9000ft, on a good day (that's the lowest). This Stage 2 passes through the clouds and lands a second later. Was it going 1/4 mile per second?

Note that at 1:40 the feed cuts out. This is fabricated. It's absolutely falsifiable with this video. There is no way it descended for 1:40 seconds and then in 5 seconds after the feed cuts it hits the cloud ceiling, then 5 seconds later its on the pad. It's ridiculous to believe this.

Think about the physics involved too. It's travelling avg of 1.7 Miles a second, then it stops to zero. And you can barely see the rocket firing to change the speed to 1/4 MPS. There's no speed change until it touches the pad.

Looked foggy though, maybe that made it hazy for a lot longer at lower altitudes.

Its not just this video there are others with distinctive cloud formations indicating approx height and the same thing happens.

The closest Elon Musk will get to Mars is the candy counter in his local store

And he couldn't sell that without government subsidies.

Unlikely. Why is there no radiation damage on any of the pictures or video from Apollo? Why didn't the dosimeters register the additional radiation given off by the moon that was only discovered years later? Why didn't the lunar rover batteries freeze when in the dark of the moon? Why was the first circumlunar flight of Saturn V done with human test subjects? Why didn't the soil analysis of the Chinese rover agree with the soil analysis of Apollo? How did we have a VTOL rocket work on 16kb of memory when we don't have that technology today? Etc...

The Apollo missions were a complete fraud.

But isn't there physical evidence that the Apollo missions left odds and sods behind? Aren't Lunar landing sites well established?

No.

Yep..... No

What about all the independent confirmation of the evidence?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 84870}

Did you even go through the supposed evidence?

1. SELENE photographs - CGI - doesn't even look the same.

2. "the Terrain Mapping Camera of India's Chandrayaan-1 probe did not have enough resolution to record Apollo hardware."

3. "It claims to have spotted traces of the Apollo landings, though the relevant imagery has not been publicly identified."

4. Aside from NASA, a number of entities and individuals observed, through various means, the Apollo missions as they took place. A probe could do the same thing - why did they send the feed to Aus and record it off a monitor?

5. Soviet Union - See: This post here

Also research how Russia got it's "Nukes" (technology) and where they got shipments for raw materials from.

Space is a lie. I don't mean space doesn't exist I mean the public was sold a lie about space. It's a fictional representation. It's easier to lie to people than convince them they were lied to. And absolutely other countries benefit to the exact same degree, also even if Russia or China or anyone started claiming the US faked the moon, the US would simply call it "Propaganda."

Essentially humanity & its beliefs move with momentum and pendulum swings. Get enough momentum on any issue and people will fall into place as "experts" and there will be tons of seemingly independent confirmation. Coincidentally anything that contradicts that narrative will end up in the state secrets vault. Contending with a narrative is political suicide and Im sure there are larger forces at play but even from an outside know-nothing perspective it's easy to see how these things relate to a common belief.

Now consider this: if the government isn't hiding anything why do they have millions of documents which will never be declassified. Why spend 1 trillion a year on defense - a large % going to classifications and secrecy.

If you do nothing wrong you have nothing to hide....

Lol you're funny. I never said "the government isn't hiding anything," and such an assertion would be nothing but lunacy. To disregard every single photograph, image, video, etc. from space as somehow another perfect manufacture of NASA and some massive worldwide conspiracy to "hoax space" would be equally as insane, the sheer number of personnel required to become lifelong devotees to the lie would obviate the story coming out eventually, not to mention I don't think some of the images CAN be effectively faked without leaving solid evidence that isn't explainable by a plausible physical means. Are you insinuating that even the ISS is a hoax mission?

Your post is full of logical fallacies and you use the world conspiracy as it was engineered in the '67 CIA memo. Sorry you are not able to discuss this any further.

Your post is full of logical fallacies

Like which ones, please let me know and I'll narrow down my arguments for you.

It takes one person to create an illusion. Drugs that were knowingly harmful were marketed to the public (Fraudulently passed by FDA) - Vioxx et al.

Okay.

With the logic you provided everyone in the company would have to be aware of the sham. Yet, it only takes a few. The rest adhere to the social engineering, hierarchy.

In many many cases, like let's say 9/11 for example, I'd agree with you wholeheartedly, they can be pulled by a few perps in strategic places. But the moon landings is a different story. Thousands of engineers knew exactly what they were working on, had hands on experience with the technology, worked out the math and science necessary for us to acquire the technology needed to get to the moon. They all believed we did it because they knew it was possible... because they MADE it possible. What reason would they have to doubt, furthermore what reason would there be to fake it if it was possible. Far from something like 9/11 which involves, if any advanced technology at all, something developed in a black box and not advertised to the world upon its exercise.

That fact in tandem with all the live moonwalk videos, which I have seen numerous refutations of, none of them I am convinced by, for me provides the insurmountable evidence. There's a point where I just have to go "yep, that's enough evidence."

Now, I have to say I'm STILL open to the idea that some of the events were hoaxed, like the very first moonwalk maybe, or maybe even just parts of it, but right now I'm on the other side of the fence where I believe it until DISproven fully.

You think very small. I never said they didn't go to the moon. I said the moon landings were staged.

They staged the moon landings to cover up the fact they went to the moon [The rumor is a few years earlier].

That fact in tandem with all the live moonwalk videos

The first transmission was sent to Pine Gap and recorded off of a monitor. There was nothing live. Because that happened, there's no reason to believe any other transmission were live. LIVE is easily faked.

NASA "loses" 200,000 data tapes including the original landing footage

The first director of NASA was a Hollywood Studio executive for 10+ years and Yale alumni. NACA employees were extremely upset about this and the director only addressed them via preplanned movie reels in large rooms. NACA employees complained about the "Big Brother" (1984) aspect.

This was a form of social conditioning, to flesh out who does what they are directed (irrationally, without question - from a screen) and who follows orders, hierarchy. NASA was also a military directive when it opened and the DoD had 100% control and authority over the agency.

Early faked footage

You cannot argue NASA doesn't lie or has not faked data. It's incontrovertible today. They are a PR agency for whatever operations the agency was actually involved in, the Moon landings, Apollo, etc. were publicity stunts. NASA is a PR agency.

You think very small.

If there's a logical fallacy in anything, this is it. An ad-hominem attack on not even my character, but my mind. I assure you I have a very open mind and though you do not have to accept my word, I'll not allow your ad-hominem attack on my person to be admitted to a serious debate.

The first transmission was sent to Pine Gap and recorded off of a monitor. There was nothing live. Because that happened, there's no reason to believe any other transmission were live. LIVE is easily faked.

Source? You're pretty confident I'll accept just about anything you say at face value, but I won't. Guess you'll say it's my "small mind."

NASA "loses" 200,000 data tapes including the original landing footage

Okay. So that's suspicious for sure, but leads you to believe they were "staged" why?

The first director of NASA was a Hollywood Studio executive for 10+ years and Yale alumni. NACA employees were extremely upset about this and the director only addressed them via preplanned movie reels in large rooms. NACA employees complained about the "Big Brother" (1984) aspect.

This was a form of social conditioning, to flesh out who does what they are directed (irrationally, without question - from a screen) and who follows orders, hierarchy. NASA was also a military directive when it opened and the DoD had 100% control and authority over the agency.

I mean it's an interesting scenario, but it sounds like you yourself are writing the script of a Hollywood movie. I mean, sure let's say it was to condition them to follow orders. Does that somehow diminish the engineering skills of any of the employees, or their ability to discern whether they were making accomplishments with their work? Why would it mean that?

Early faked footage

Not sure what this is, who made it, what it purports to show, which part of it is fake, nor least of all what relevance it has to NASA in the 1960s allegedly putting men on the moon and broadcasting live footage of the event to the American public. I have literally no clue why you are presenting this information to the debate other than it's footage of a rocket that looks a bit cheesy and you thought that would add to the array of convergence of evidence against the moon landing. But it doesn't any more than this.

You cannot argue NASA doesn't lie or has not faked data.

Well, I CAN but I don't and never did.

It's incontrovertible today.

Alright.

They are a PR agency for whatever operations the agency was actually involved in, the Moon landings, Apollo, etc. were publicity stunts. NASA is a PR agency.

I actually agree. Does that mean everything they accomplish is "staged"?

Im not telling you what I believe. I believe nothing. Im listing what the evidence points to or what is known.

Small mind is not an Ad Hominem, we are programmed and conditioned at birth. To break the condition people need to think bigger yet small at the same time. There's more than one thing going on.

Im also not trying to convince you of anything. Information is there for others to look into.

And I'm telling you I've looked at it and despite occasional inconsistencies in NASA press releases, the evidence just for the fact that NASA put a man on the moon is overwhelming in its own right. Is it you who are too small-minded to consider than someone who's examined the same evidence you have could possibly come to an alternate conclusion based on it?

That type of "small minded" could be seen as an ad hominem. I was talking about looking at the larger picture. No offence was directed at you.

Fair enough. Have a good one, brother.

Cheers.

Yeah the retro-reflecters are still there. The landing sites have also been photographed by orbiters.

Why is there no radiation damage on any of the pictures or video from Apollo?

Not really enough radiation for it to really matter.

Of course there are photos you can see evidence of radiation.

Why didn't the dosimeters register the additional radiation given off by the moon that was only discovered years later?

huh?

Why didn't the lunar rover batteries freeze when in the dark of the moon?

Why would they? You know batteries can be designed to be relatively hardy right?

Why was the first circumlunar flight of Saturn V done with human test subjects?

Why wouldn't it be?

Why didn't the soil analysis of the Chinese rover agree with the soil analysis of Apollo?

Huh?

How did we have a VTOL rocket work

Nothing in Apollo involved a VTOL rocket.

on 16kb of memory

Because it was remarkably simple, what with their massive team of crew supporting the craft.

when we don't have that technology today?

What's so hard to understand that missions change?

The Apollo missions were a complete fraud.

Try harder.

Wouldn't it have been more impressive to have landed on Mars though? Why wouldn't they have faked that instead? Mars is farther away.

Oh come on....

This is exactly what I believe. I know it is heresy to say we went to the moon around here, but I find the secret space program theories much more compelling than the hoax ones.

We returned to the moon several times after the first time. What are you talking about?

On the issue of colonization there is a space treaty to prevent the militarization of the moon, for good reason. Read Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress for that reason.

Additionally the moon may be off limits for....other reasons.

Theoretically speaking if you were a highly advanced and long lived species tasked with monitoring the development of life in the cosmos you probably would not be scuttling about hiding on the surface of the planet you were observing now would you?

A ton of BS in the moon mystery world, but there is also solid evidence of vast hollows and cavern networks beneath the surface. Circumstantially, no-one was talking about any surface activity being resumed until just this last decade, AFTER scientists nuked the crap out of a particular area.

Good question.

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a great recommendation in any context.

What about nuking the crap out of the moon. When did that happen?

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/10/09/probe.moon.crash/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1218768/Revealed-The-flash-saw-Nasas-49million-bomb-crashed-Moon-quest-discover-water.html

Neither of these even mention a bomb let alone a nuclear one... they crashed a speeding rocket into a crater... no explosives...

I know, but i think this is what Tempemagus was talking about in a not too subtile way.

I should have mentioned that, posted without thinking, sorry.

There was a plot to nuke the moon though, but i don't know if they did that for real.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_A119

all good. I didn't even pay attention that you are not who I commented to before. Yea i looked that up the other day. They had some plan to do it but they didn't even go through with it becuase it would be extermely stupid and the public would be disgusted... not that that really stops them...

not that that really stops them...

That might be even an understatement... But i think we could win afterall, there is a lot surfacing lately, it is up to us how we handle this.

In one of the bigger hits it was stated that the moon was moving side to side 'like it had hydraulic shock absorbers inside it'

Yes, the second time it lasted 4 hours. It seems to be a hollow structure.

Yes they crashed rocket into it, and according to NASA it vibrated or 'rang like a bell' for 30 mins. Hollow

I don't believe we've ever been to the moon and Russia and China are aware of that fact as well.

A lot of people like to look at Russia and the 'Space Race' as a reason for us going there so early, but I just think they were putting on a show for everyone.

History is useful in understanding geopolitical climates. The "Revolution" in Russia was funding by international bankers/industrialists. Connected to none other than the Red Shields and the Schiffs in New York. Trotsky was arrested in Canada with 10k in his pocket, and released after a call from Wilson.

Officially the Rockefellers had a hand in Russian politics and business via their "philanthropy". The following paper also cites Minerva "Issue" - I assume a periodical. Note the connection to the DoD's Minerva program and the leak in Hillary's emails citing "The Minerva Rule"

Long History of Rockefeller / Banker influence in Russia after the Monarchy fell to Bolshevism

The Russian case highlights several of these conceptual issues. Rela-tions between Rockefeller and Russia unfolded during the ‘years of silence’, when America and Soviet Russia lacked diplomatic ties. 4

Here's the kicker:

Indicative of this was a strange event which occurred in October of 1964. David Rockefeller, president of the Chase Manhattan Bank and chairman of the board of the Council on Foreign Relations, took a vacation in the Soviet Union. This is a peculiar place for the world's greatest "imperialist" to take his vacation since much of Communist propaganda deals with taking all of David's wealth away from him and distributing it to "the people."

A few days after Rockefeller ended his "vacation" in the Kremlin, Nikita Khrushchev was recalled from a vacation at a Black Sea resort to learn that he had been fired. How strange! As far as the world knew, Khrushchev was the absolute dictator of the Soviet government and, more important, head of the Communist Party which runs the USSR.

So if the US faked the moon landing and I assume the Russian powers knew about it, it's very possible Kruschev was not happy or willing to agree to it. But whatever powers over him forced him into submission shortly after.

Rumours exist that the actual moon missions happened 5 years or so before the real ones. That after going there it was decided the fake version would be made public instead later in the decade.

Interesting, thanks for sharing. I'm not as familiar with the political environment during those times so this definitely helps. As usual with this stuff, I end up with more questions than answers.

Why hasn't Russia, china, or another country been to the moon?

Russia sent a few rovers up which are still sitting there (Lunokhod's I and II), supposedly you can see them with a really nice telescope. They also have laser reflects mounted to them that can bounce signals back to Earth if your aim is good enough.

China sent a rover up a couple years ago but it had a dust problem just after it landed, major disappointment.

Why don't they go to the moon to put their flag like America has done? Why haven't we colonized the moon yet? I know the cost would be ridiculous but what's actually stopping us or them from doing so?

The thing is that there's not really much of a reason to. We have decades of identical or similar science experiments we can do in lower Earth orbit at a fraction of the cost. There's nothing of value up on the Moon that's worth lifting a rocket up into space to retrieve. Maybe one day we could use it as a staging area for long-range missions...but even then it makes more sense to build a space station instead.

In short, the Moon is just, well, kind of useless in and of itself. It was a nice propaganda victory in the Cold War, but aside from that, it's really just a barren rock. It's got some interesting questions around it, but nothing so interesting as to out-prioritize questions we can answer in low Earth orbit.

To add to this- the moon is deceptively far away, and most people don't understand that it would cost tens, or hundreds of times more to send a ship to the moon as opposed to just into orbit.

So why do people still climb everest etc? Cost in the 60s must have been much higher than now?

I'm not really sure what you are implying with this question, but I'll try to answer.

First off, people still climb everest because it is the highest mountain on earth and thus a great achievement. Also, it is actually more expensive to climb everest now than it was then- the difference is, it is significantly less dangerous now. So you are paying for the premium of having pre-roped routes with ladders across crevasses and such, plus a team of highly experienced mountain guides to take you.

Im not really sure of what you are implying with your answer.

Flying to the moon completely shits on climbing Mount Everest in terms of accomplishment.

And whilst it is more expensive today as well, surely with the circa 50 years of advanced technology surely it would be much safer than flying to the moon 50 years ago.

No one went to the moon in a machine with the computing power of my microwave.

Look at this

None of that holds any water what so ever.

Are you telling me countries like China, India, Russia, etc, etc would not get a massive propaganda benefit (internally if nothing else) by landing men on the moon?

Almost nobody climbs it twice, unless the second time there's an added level of achievement (e.g. doing it without oxygen or something). We already climbed Everest in the 60's, chalked up the win, and moved on.

I still don't see the logic that because NASA was the first to put someone on the Moon, no other country in the world would try to do it for themselves. December 7, 1972 last mission to the moon is a long time for other countries to do it, if in fact it was done at all.

How many more ways can I explain it?

It's ridiculously expensive to go to the moon, most of the money goes into fuel, not scientific instrumentation or anything like that.

If your goal is maximizing your science-per-dollar-spent, that money is better spent in low Earth orbit for now.

If you're in it for prestige...there's not much prestige in being #2 to do something, and it's especially silly to spend a ton of money just to be #2 and not get much else out of it.

People don't understand just how rich the US was and is compared to other nations. Our budget is huge, not just because of wealth per capita, but also because we're #3 in terms of population, second only to China and India.

You tell me why anyone should care to go to the Moon when:

A) It is expensive as fuck

B) You can only at best be #2

C) There is still a list a mile long of fresh, new, innovative science that can be done in orbit for a fraction of the cost

I can find multiple plans of multiple space agencies currently in progress including Russia, also can find former NASA astronauts explaining why a return trip to the moon would be a necessary step in further space exploration, and can also produce documents from NASA's website explaining the importance of returning to the moon.

In other words the "no reason to go back" concept is idiotic hogwash so stop trying to actively deceive OP with obtuse bullshit.

.I can find multiple plans and desires of multiple space agencies to make moon trips including Russia, India, and Israel, also can find former NASA astronauts explaining why a return trip to the moon would be a necessary step in further space exploration, and can also produce documents from NASA's website explaining the importance of returning to the moon.

And poof it just happens right?

.In other words the "no reason to go back" concept is idiotic hogwash so if you honestly think that I'd be glad to show you your error, otherwise stop trying to actively deceive OP with obtuse bullshit.

You're free to post an even poorly informed mission objective, plan and itinerary. Go ahead.

a reason to go or return would be to establish Lunar optical and radio telescopes.

the far side of the Moon would be have total radio silence from Earth radiation. the perfect way to observe the galaxy in detail.

That's definitely a neat idea, and I would bet my life savings that we'll have something like that by 2050. In the meantime, though, they just upgraded Hubble a few years ago and will probably rely on that (and other stuff we have right now) for awhile before we reach limitations that would push us to a moon colony.

If your whole basis for refuting my "idiotic hogwash" is that people have hopes and dreams and plans, then don't bother.

Didn't it ring like a bell when probed? Seems like here's more there than just a barren rock

No that is disinfo as by saying that they are creating some kind of hollow moon conspiracy to legitimise and nullify the questions about never actually ever going there. Same as Neil Armstrongs alleged claim that there were aliens watching them from a crater - if he did say this I am guessing they must be Mexicans in Arizona....

How is it disinformation?

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/15mar_moonquakes

Furthermore, shallow moonquakes lasted a remarkably long time. Once they got going, all continued more than 10 minutes. "The moon was ringing like a bell," Neal says.

Sure, and someday that'd be worth investigating, but can it justify another manned moon mission? Right now not really. They can still learn tons about the moon's composition simply by hitting it really hard. When learn everything we can about the moon from that kind of at-a-distance work, then it might make sense to send astronauts again.

Also, NASA's funding is pretty pathetic in the grand scheme of things. Quadruple their budget and stuff like a moon colony just for scientific study starts to make more sense.

There's plenty of reasons for going back to the moon, and not just for NASA. Military installation, a deep space telescope outside of the distortions of our atmosphere, countless mineable key elements like Titanium and Helium, and probably many other reasons.

NASA may be underfunded, but the fact that not a single other country or entity has had a manned mission leave low-earth orbit except for those 7 times back in the 60's is still a major red flag. The whole "going back would be pointless!" argument seems like a talking point that was pushed to the point of commonly-known fact.

You are and others keep repeating this but aren't touching the crux of my argument.

I admit, there are useful things to do on the Moon.

However, those things have a cost associated with them, and there is other science that can be done closer to Earth at a lower cost which still has high returns at this stage.

What pushed humans to the moon wasn't the science, it was the propaganda victory. That's why they wasted time doing dumb shit like golfing up there.

I like your analogy, and I agree that the cost of going to the moon is very high compared to the potential gains (that we know of anyway). Hopefully we are nearing the point where this kind of travel will be more affordable as new technologies are invented, like SpaceX's Falcon rockets.

As for your other point, I see what you mean, but it still does not make sense that no one has even attempted to leave low earth orbit with a manned mission. Other countries who may be behind the US in the space race would stand to benefit from achieving something that hasn't been done in over 40 years, in order to prove themselves as a world player in the space race (like China, India, Mexico, etc.) Technology and rocket efficiency has significantly improved since the Apollo missions, yet not one country or organization has enough money to even attempt leaving low earth orbit just once? America was able to do it 7 TIMES! If it was so expensive that no one since has been able to afford it, then how were we able to afford going that many times? We even started bringing collapsible transforming Moon-buggys!

What pushed humans to the moon wasn't the science, it was the Cold War propaganda victory.

That's exactly what I think the whole thing was, a Cold War propaganda victory. They faked going to the moon, and instead used that massive budget for god knows what (same place the money from the Star Wars Defense System boondoggle went I imagine). And why would the Russians just completely give up after that if they were already so close to doing it? Especially during the Cold War, where both sides were extremely paranoid about the other's weapons capabilities like with the whole Sputnik thing. Wouldn't they want to make sure that we weren't putting nukes on the moon that could be launched at them undetected?

Bear in mind, I'm not trying to say that this is 100% fact, this is just my belief based on what I've seen and read over the years. I appreciate your counterarguments, as I enjoy having my beliefs challenged.

Yes it did, according to NASA. Not sure what that other guy is saying.

I've always flirted with the theory that the moon is an artificially constructed object which was placed there in order to originally terraform the Earth. We know it influences things like the tide, but it could be serving other purposes that we can't even fathom yet. Who or what put it there, is then the real question.

Aside from the potential of a hollow core, the most intriguing aspects to support this theory are

A. the moon's orbit and rotation, which have multiple irregularities from most other satellites (like the fact that it rotates at the prefect speed to only ever reveal one side to earth). The wiki is pretty interesting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon

And B. It's distance from earth is very close to appearing as the exact same size as the sun when viewed from earth. This is why only a small portion of the world are able to witness a total solar eclipse when they happen.

Just some food for thought.

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 84930}

Good looks, u/HelperBot_

Have you heard of a phenomenon called Tidal Locking?

One fact that I find more incredible than the distance-size proportion is that our teeny little Earth has the largest sized moon relative to itself of all the planets in the solar system. It's nearly 1/3rd the size of earth! Our moon is bigger than Pluto!

That's another great point! Thanks for reminding me

http://blogstronomy.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-is-earths-moon-so-much-bigger-than.html

supposedly

Keyword here. Don't believe it until you see with your own eyes.

Do you believe electrons exist?

Of course I do. That's different than someone saying they travelled to the moon and put a flag in it.

It is literally impossible to see an electron with your own eyes.

How is it different?

And how do you propose we see it with our own eyes?

If your standard of proof is fundamentally impractical, then your skepticism is in bad faith.

I have an expensive telescope. You should believe me that I zoomed in on what appears to be a flag. Do you believe me?

I have a healthy and practical skeptical view.

We've never been to the moon. Read Dave McGowan's "Wagging the Moondoggie." It was a total propaganda scam to build up patriotism and change the subject from a series of failed military escalations in Vietnam.

I think it's entirely possible they went to the moon, just not with the listed technology or operations they claimed to do it with. It makes much more sense from a strategical standpoint as well. If you go but cannot disclose the technology, method, or "help" (whichever it may be) you fake a low tech version that people hold arrogantly. Should anyone catch wind of the real operation Black Propaganda that it was faked is released. Instead of the real OP being discussed it becomes a Fake vs Real argument with no in between or logical discussion on the who, how, why, when, etc.

I suppose this is possible. I had a conversation with a deep conspiracy type with (alleged) intelligence and Skull & Bones history/contacts/family, and he swore to me that we were "off-world," but was vague about the particulars and technology that got us there.

So it's possible. Anything seems to be anymore....

Spot on

If you don't think we've been to the moon, you're not rational.

That's irrational thinking. It was game over for me when I saw footage of president Nixon calling the moon from the oval office. People actually believed that shit. Sheeesh.

That's certainly not evidence that they didn't go to the moon though.

Right. It's evidence that they're liars. Why would they feel the need to lie about something like that? Isn't going to the moon a good enough feat in itself? Fool me once.

Exactly. In a court of law, once you're caught lying once, everything you say is now under doubt.

These people need to read "Wagging the Moondoggie," not only for the scientific impossibilities, but the curious dovetailing of moon expeditions with Vietnam escalations that got pushed out of the media because of the moon landing coverage.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Trust is the hardest thing to earn and the easiest thing to lose. At this point, I don't think they could earn my trust again.

You don't think it is or was possible at the time?

I don't know. What I do know, is that there are holes in their story, which tells me they're lying. If they feel the need to lie to the world while conquering man's greatest feat, they didn't go.

What holes?

Nixon allegedly called the moon. They were caught staging the blue marble photo of the earth. Their demeanor during the press conference after. Etc.

You don't think the call actually happened? They were? Their demeanor?

How would they call the moon in 1969? Nixon was talking on a landline. Go watch the press conference and see what I mean. They were acting strange, like they were hiding something. You can also watch body language experts dissect the video for further evidence.

Didn't they have radio back then?

Yes there was, but like I said, Nixon was talking on a landline.

Maybe the phone cable was connected to a radio?

Do you believe that?

I think it sounds plausible. Do you?

No. Not when you add up the rest of the things I mentioned.

How did they act after they allegedly returned from the moon? Nervous?

Go watch the video, along with body language experts take on it. Or would you rather go around in circles here?

I just want to get your take on it and ask some questions.

That's fine. They were not acting like people who just completed the largest feat mankind has ever done. They were acting very nervous, sheepish, and anxious. There's also a documentary out where a guy tracks down all the astronauts (astro nots) and asks them to swear on the Bible they went to the moon. They would not do it. They staged the photo of the earth. That right there is the smoking gun imo. Why stage a photo of the earth if you're on the moon?

How do you know they staged the photo?

https://youtu.be/xciCJfbTvE4

Watch that. There's a whole part where theyre covering up the window to make the earth look smaller and further away.

Yeah, that's a big "tell" right there.

What's unexpected is that even in 1969, a poll showed that about 30% of the country doubted the moon landing was real. There were people not buying that bullshit even as it was crammed at us through the teevee, just nobody in the media was going to promote that narrative.

Was the reason why they doubted it ever revealed?

I'd say the reverse is true. The more rational, logical and questioning I've become, the more clear it seems to me that it's very unlikely we've been to the moon, at least in the way we were told/sold.

You've read "Wagging the Moondoggie," then? How about watched "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon"?

You're welcome to have an opinion, but those are biased sources. I haven't read that book but i have watched the documentary. There isn't proof that we didn't land on the moon and there is overwhelming testimony from respectable sources that we have. The amount of people a conspiracy of that magnitude would require to keep it secret makes it unrealistic, in my opinion.

Not nearly as many as it would take to keep the Catholic Church's pedophile scandal secret. For centuries.

"The amount of people a conspiracy of that magnitude would require to keep it secret makes it unrealistic," is an official CIA talking point for their controlled media assets, FYI. It's from their notorious "conspiracy theory" memo distributed to influencers under their control in 1967 and has ever since been so.

And why haven't we heard it from them, translated? Seems blurry to me too

China HAS been to the moon, or at least a rover has...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25393826

Coincidentally after a Chinese Scientist was charged for stealing a hard drive with all the NASA CGI tools. Not even kidding. No coincidence their pictures all look the same.

One might say, "well it's the same place, of course it looks the same!". But no. Go look at various Amateur or even professional photography. Each system has minor differences, plus light, aperature settings, etc.

Unless officially they are using identical equipment with identical settings. Which begs the question of impossible cooperation.

Fair enough. I am not going to pretend I KNOW they landed a rover there.

At very least they used a different color or light filter for the ground to look a bit less greyish-white.

The rendering looks the same though.

Interesting. By the locker room do you mean that they may have actually been on Earth?

No comment on what it implies but there were also pictures with the Chinese flag textures missing, as well as texturing problems in entire sets of landscape.

Many deductions could be made.

I do not think they exist online anymore though I might be wrong. They are from this set of photos I assume although not 100% on that either. I can tell you if you look at the first photo with the flag, there was a set where the flag had no textures. Also another with texture problems on the ground or background, and then a very odd set with a locker room.

Thanks. I shall have a look

they landed a rover there.

with circa 1999 digital potato camera technology.

lmao.

That is some laughable footage, bro. Do you really believe it?

Meh. I don't assume I KNOW anything I haven't tested or experienced myself.

I just thought I would share that since I remembered it. Mostly because I thought the surface looked different than the NASA images of grey-white landscapes.

Why can't anyone find a single picture of the moon taken from ISS?

Did you even look? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=moon+from+iss

There is also the issue of Van Allen's Belt, a huge band of radiation around the planet, that no human has ever been able to pass through, according to NASA. So no, we never went to the moon.

Van Allen's Belt, a huge band of radiation around the planet, that no human has ever been able to pass through, according to NASA.

NASA has never said this, the Apollo missions passed through it.

Actually NASA has admitted on multiple occasions they still can't deal with this or interstellar radiation that lies beyond and no human has ever been within a few hundred miles of the belts and lived to tell about it.

How Particle Physics Killed The Moon Landing

Actually NASA has admitted on multiple occasions they still can't deal with this or interstellar radiation that lies beyond and no human has ever been within a few hundred miles of the belts and lived to tell about it.

When did NASA say this?

The video includes multiple instances of talking heads, not necessarily from NASA, saying basically this. Here is a quote from NASA that is specifically talking about interstellar radiation, yet this would have also been a show-stopper for any moon mission.

“NASA’s focus now is on sending humans beyond low-Earth orbit to Mars… We are trying to develop the technologies to get there, it is actually a huge technological challenge. There are a couple of really big issues. For one thing – Radiation. Once you get outside the Earth’s magnetic field we are going to be exposing the astronauts to not just radiation coming from the Sun, but also to cosmic radiation. That's a higher dose than we think humans right now should really get.”

Dr Ellen Stofan, Chief Scientist, NASA, and principal advisor to NASA Administrator – BBC Newsnight interview, November 2014

That's not saying we have never gone beyond low earth orbit.

Of course a NASA official wouldn't say that. I'm saying that.

Then why reply with attempt to claim NASA said we have never done it?

I didn't say that, I said NASA says we cannot do it. Even Van Allen himself said that the belts themselves (let alone the GCRs in outer space once you get through the belts) posed an insurmountable danger barring advancements in shielding.

Trolling again?

Actually NASA has admitted on multiple occasions they still can't deal with this or interstellar radiation that lies beyond and no human has ever been within a few hundred miles of the belts and lived to tell about it.

Source?

NASA admits we cannot go beyond low earth orbit: https://youtu.be/FmoiwjXepHM

That's a flat earth YouTube video dude. When did NASA actually say it?

As in a statement to the press or public.

Those are NASA representatives in the video, speaking on behalf of NASA. What do you want?

There is no point in that video where a NASA representative claims that we have never gone beyond low Earth orbit.

Anything else I can spoon feed you, since you fail at basic comprehension skills?

1:22, this is a snip from a NASA produced video on Orion, "This next generation spacecraft will enable America to explore beyond low earth orbit" 1:50, NASA Engineer discussing Van Allen's Belt "We must solve this problem before we send people through this region of space" 2:17, NASA crew "on board" ISS, "Right now, we only can fly in earth orbit, that's as far as we can go." 2:44, NASA crew "on board" ISS, "Our goals or going beyond low earth orbit." 3:00, President Obama, "Early in the decade, a set of crude flights will test and prove the systems required for exploration beyond low earth orbit."

"This next generation spacecraft will enable America to explore beyond low earth orbit"

That's not saying we've never been beyond it.

"We must solve this problem before we send people through this region of space"

This region being previously impassable zones of the belts. That's not a statement claiming we have never passed through the belts, nor is it claiming we have never gone beyond low Earth orbit.

"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.[31] The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them. Apollo flight trajectories bypassed the inner belts completely, and only passed through the thinner areas of the outer belts."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt#Implications_for_space_travel

NASA crew "on board" ISS, "Right now, we only can fly in earth orbit, that's as far as we can go."

With current craft. We don't currently have active craft specifically for low earth orbit. That's different than claiming we never have gone beyond it.

Actually none of your quotes claim we never have gone beyond low earth orbit, just that the Orion craft will allow us to do so again.

Also, this stupid video claims we filmed landings from the moon's surface. LOL.

I applaud the effort but must warn you of how futile this conversation is

Ha, tell me about it. Just killing some time while I work.

Trolling as you are meant to be working?

Removed. Rule 10. First warning.

Just killing some time while I work.

slow time at NASA !?

I wish, hospital administration.

You are taking all the quotes out of context. But hey, if it helps you sleep at night to think that people have been to the moon, or at least beyond low earth orbit, then more power to you. Some people need to believe in science fiction to feel good about their lives, others can accept cold, hard reality.

You are taking all the quotes out of context.

No, I'm explaining their context. The context is the Orion craft and our current capabilities. Nobody in the video is claiming humans never traveled beyond LEO.

This next generation spacecraft will enable America to explore beyond low earth orbit"

Ok. So where does it say previous ones can't?

We must solve this problem before we send people through this region of space

Yeah.

And?

Every time a plane takes off it has to solve the problem of gravity

Right now, we only can fly in earth orbit, that's as far as we can go

Correct, that's what the ISS and its supporting craft are designed to do.

"Early in the decade, a set of crude flights will test and prove the systems required for exploration beyond low earth orbit."

Yes, new things get designed and tested all the time. What's your point?

Lol at 4:36

She has that expression because she cannot believe someone is actually that retarded.

Exactly, lmao.

Impossible. In something made of bacofoil? You would need about 12 feet of lead casing. This is utter rubbish. That thing they sent up wouldnt last 2 minutes in a microwave let alone the Van Allen belt

How is it impossible for the Apollo missions to have gone through the Van Allen belt as claimed?

Google it. There is loads. I am not Google and don't be lazy

I'll take that as a "no". Later.

No take it as you are too lazy to do your own research and just enjoy a nice bit of trolling

You made a claim, I asked for evidence. You declined, I'm not the lazy one here.

So you can be bothered to type a message to me but you cant be bothered to type into google. Its not my job to wipe your arse

This is an amusing way of saying "I have no evidence for my claim" LOL.

Move along troll

there is also no evidence of your claim...

nasa scientists have repeatedly said, yes there is a belt of radiation, but think about it, density, it's not thick the same everywhere, you have patches of more and less dense radiation if that's acceptable terminology

and secondly, it's not like it spans all the way to jupiter, it's a small belt, small in the terms of astro distances, not down the road to your local chemist

so with proper shielding and planing you could find the smallest, shortest route through the belt, and that's exactly what they did

or if you must insist, find me credible people claiming this cannot be done.

Um, I think you're talking to the wrong person lol.

i don't think so ... doesn't your comment imply that humans cannot and have not gone through the Van Allen radiation belt?

I was just disputing this claim.

doesn't your comment imply that humans cannot and have not gone through the Van Allen radiation belt?

Nope.

yeah i read it wrong ... bygones

Spot on

There is also the issue of Van Allen's Belt, a huge band of radiation around the planet, that no human has ever been able to pass through, according to NASA.

Source?

Tell me a good reason why they should go

this.

Not only has no other country placed a flag there, none have even verified the American moon landing sites.

When JFK announced in 1961 that America would land on the moon he was blissfully unaware of Van Allen and interstellar radiation and had no idea what he was signing the nation's space program up for. Well, the space program was really only ever a sort of entertainment Branch of Central Intelligence. They faked the entire Apollo program and the space fakery has not stopped.

Yes, I second the recommendation someone else made about Wagging the Moondoggie. Read it. It's free online.

The idea that "there's no reason to go to the moon" for any other country is the most idiotic concept anyone could ever try to tell you and one that I can easily refute multiple times over.

Here's a discussion I also wholeheartedly recommend that would answer some of your good questions and leave no doubt that Apollo was an elaborate hoax.

https://youtu.be/V4llfIjJBuk

When JFK announced in 1961 that America would land on the moon he was blissfully unaware of Van Allen and interstellar radiation

I'm sure he was unaware of a good portion of the intricacies of space travel.

and had no idea what he was signing the nation's space program up for.

Most people, including those involved probably didn't either. That's why they spent time and money researching, testing and revising.

The idea that "there's no reason to go to the moon" for any other country is the most idiotic concept anyone could ever try to tell you and one that I can easily refute multiple times over.

And yet in months of smugly reciting this point, you've never once been able to describe what that mission would be today, nor what it should have been in 1975, 1981, 1995, 2003 or any other time previous.

none have even verified the American moon landing sites.

Four different countries have?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

I often link to that very Wikipedia article to show how there's not a single thing in there that would be even remotely convincing for anyone who was even remotely skeptical of NASA's claims. My favorite part is when it says that China's Chang'e 2 probe took pictures of the Apollo landing sites but "the relevant imagery has not been identified."

Of course it hasn't.

Haha yeah, ignoring all the evidence and focussing on that is a great way to make a bad argument.

Ok from that Wikipedia article point to the strongest evidence in your opinion that we went to the moon in 1969-72, that would be good for convincing someone who had well-founded doubts about it.

Literally that whole page. Like, it's all independently verified information showing exactly what you want to know.

But for the sake of excercise, SELENE.

So a 3D rendered recreation of the background of the concave studio background used in filming the Apollo hoaxes is supposed to convince a skeptic that men walked on the moon in 1969 as claimed by NASA? You must be joking.

If your only response to any evidence is "I don't believe it" then of course you aren't going to be convinced.

What your arguing, against the mountains of publicly available evidence and information, is that people are still faking missions (not to mention the laser responses) for no other reason than to keep backing up a 50 year old story. Instead of keeping it closed in they are now expanding the fraud to include other countries who are faking launches, radar information, equipment and more just to keep up the ruse.

Humanity has not yet expended its cheese supplies. Once Earth starts running out of it, mining expeditions on the Moon will commence.

The moon is semi transparent. I will link some stuff about the moon if anyone is interested in how the moon is in actuality an astral body. Everything in what we call outer space is a light body in the astral plane.

The sun, moon, stars. There are other types of astral bodies you can't see because they don't necessarily light up within our perception. Nonetheless they still emit a different type of light within a different spectrum.

First of all space is not what NASA fakes it as. They create a totally false paradigm and everyone buys it. Well not everyone, I don't. And I have researched enough about consciousness to know there are different areas of consciousness, and what NASA tells you is space, is actually one of those areas. That area is known as the Astral Plane. The density is different as the density materializes as almost no density at all.

So the moon, is essentially a light body. Though it's also a creation within the environment it resides in. Some being, or groups of beings with a reality within the astral plane has made the moon. And on a lighter density than we currently perceive ,they are using it.

More please

Ok, thanks. As I was explaining before the bodies within the astral plane don't all light up in our visual spectrum.

What I will show you first is RAHU and KETU. These are two astral bodies that Eclipse the moon.

https://youtu.be/Lcfv9xrZMLA

Haha ok that wasn't what I expected. The light moving around the moon is pretty cool. But when the guy starts talking about flat earth he loses me. I can see satellites in the sky on a regular basis. Also I see planes every day. Dozens of them. I live under the great circle route. I turned it off when he started saying everyone who doesn't understand flat earth is a "dumb fuck retard". Thanks anyway though.

He is right. Unfortunately you don't see that yet. Also he was saying you can barely see planes so how do you see satellites that are farther up? I highly doubt you can see satellites, first of all they are supposedly traveling at 17000 mph. So no, you don't see them. So are you talking about?

You most likely saw flat earth and your bias kicked in.

"The light moving around the moon was pretty cool"

dude, it's more than cool. But thanks for skimming over that to instead pointlessly and incorrectly critique the rest of the video. :p

Ah I see you have a strong attachment as to whether or not I believe this. Fact is, I won't watch anyone who calls people fucking dumb retards. How is that helpful?

Anyway, back to planes and satellites. Welp if I can't see satellites what am I seeing when I see planes? He says in the video people can't see planes. Also, why are satellites and flat earth mutually exclusive? So many things I don't understand. Also, what do the astral bodies moving across the moon have to do with the shape of the earth? They couldn't do that if the earth were round?

Actually you engaged me for info and then didn't make any sense after that so I think you are curious and questioning things so I have no problem with it. I will gladly call you dumb too. People need it. They are fucking duuuuuumb. :p don't be so uptight you know it's true. I was one of them. I was fucking duuumb.

Ok , let me explain the vid. There are other astral bodies eclipsing the moon. There is actually a legend about it called Raku and Ketu

In Hindu tradition, Rahu ( ) is the severed head of an asura called Svarbhānu, that swallows the sun causing eclipses. He is depicted in art as a serpent with no body riding a chariot drawn by eight black horses. Rahu is one of the navagraha (nine planets) in Vedic astrology and is paired with Ketu.

Now that aside, what are we looking at? The video clearly, to best a camera can record this, it captures this legend in action. It was there, you saw it. Let go of your bias and conditioned perception. There is clearly something eclipsing the moon and it's not the earth.

Nah, he's right. The Rahu shit was pretty interesting at first i'll admit... BUT, when he starts dancing around saying I am a fuckin idiot for not believing in flat earth(because the earth is fucking round) I also lost interest. Other than the Astral Plane information(which is honestly pretty interesting) everything else just seems kind of lunatic.. including him.

Sorry if the dude hurts ya'lls feelings. But yea, explain rahu and ketu. Pretty amazing. For what's worth that guy was an idiot too. If you watch his other vids he says he was dumb before he knew the truth. I was too. Tptb want to keep us idiots. We are idiots because we believe in a false paradigm purposely created to make us dumb. Time to wake the fuck up man.

Fake as fuuuuckkk

That's the typical reaction. Meanwhile NASA has fooled the living shit out of you.

See you automatically believe they have been to the moon so when the reality of that is questioned it must be fake to you. Trust me, the programming is deep and you won't just discard it over night. But for the sake of your own awareness you might want get started. Ill put it this way, you can't see the light with the darkness that is cast over your perception. Good luck!

Maybe when you can get to the astral plane effortlessly at your command you will come to see your error

Ever day dream? It's not that fucking hard. :p I mean really, it's not that complex of an idea. You dream every night ,where do you go? Connect these dots...Night, sleep, dreams, 'space' are all interconnected. Think about it. We each have a personal relationship with each area of consciousness and it's not really hidden inside.

We are each in area 1 now. Dense Waking reality. Waking is also connected to the dream state, area 2, or the astral area of consciousness.

Though, through their efforts it has been extremely separated. This is the reason for the fake space is to artificially separate the consciousness of waking and dreaming. Because the knowledge of their connection Is quite powerful and wouldn't be controllable, like they want. They actually use the astral in ways that are highly symbolic in nature and with a type of forced prediction that is difficult to explain in one post.

But again, it is a simple perception that our consciousness is reflected into our world. We dream, we go to the astral, this is what space is a reflection of. Our world reflects our consciousness.

As for controlling the astral body , or being more in control of the astral experience. You have to understand that your being while awake and dense ,and your being while asleep and light are in fact overlapped. Or in other words you are a dense version of a dream body.

So is practically everything in space to some extent. Only in the astral our area 1 is too dense. So man-made satellites are not in the astral plane as a physical dense object. Nothing we are sending to space is an astral body, therefore nothing goes to space. Density more or less is the next level down from the astral. Hope that is clear.

Because it's a space station, not your moon. The first/ last humans to set foot on the station surface, had a lot of questions to answer. Just imagine the reaction if an alien strolled onto a an army base uninvited

I want to believe this. Any links for reading?

Star wars 1-8, it's a death star

for the same reason we didn't colonize Antarctica yet.

Enlighten us...

There's something there they don't want us to see. They would never allow it

Santa's Workshop, obviously

Wrong side of the planet

That's just what they want you to think.

It's a fuck far away, hostile and way too expensive to go search for resources, when we can drain the closer , readily available resources.

Unless it has unobtainium, or adamantium , in which case, I'm all for go.

That, or it's restricted for some occult conspiracy reason.

Is unobtanium hard to obtain?

It's not so much when you kill all the natives.

It does have an absolutely ENORMOUS amount of Helium-3, which can be used as fuel for nuclear fusion reactors (though, for now, we have yet to successfully produce useful energy from fusion reactors, that may change in the future).

We (humans) never went there in the first place, there are several obstacles, monetary cost of sending a manned mission to the moon, there is also the Van Allen Belt which will literally kill any human traveling through it, if there are other beings outside of earth (which i am sure there are, we humans are not so special and unique) then they have the technology to go through it when they please without any problem.

there is also the Van Allen Belt which will literally kill any human traveling through it

source?

The moon isn't naturally occurring. I'm not saying it is a hologram or anything but it didn't naturally come into being. The moon is hollow or honeycombed, which moons can't be under conventional gravitational theory. All the densest minerals are on the surface of the moon, also something that can't naturally occur. Don't ask me to link to sources because I read them in a book, remember those :)? Book is called 'Who built the moon' if anyone is interested.

Don't ask me to link to sources because I read them in a book, remember those :)

I also remember that many books are utter nonsense. :)

Terrific attitude

And why does this cable say that Russia destroyed our "secret moon base"?

duh, its a hologram.

Have you seen any of the Lunar Wave videos?

The cost, plus there is no profitable financial incentive to maintain an absurdly expensive, essentially useless moon colony

because you cannot land on the moon, it is a self illuminating light under our dome.

China, nor Russia have a movie director as talented as Stanley Kubrick.

I always thought that space colonization would create interplanetary warfare.

Incentive. What is it to colonize the moon. China landed a rover on the moon. It's actually harder then you think and since America has done it, the incentive is lost, seeing as there's not much there.

The moon is only 30 miles in diameter, and radiates cold. It's not a place you go. It's hollow, and it's clear. It's a giant transformer, that converts energy into cold.

They have been to the Moon via rovers numerous times.

That's a flat earth YouTube video dude. When did NASA actually say it?

As in a statement to the press or public.

Lol at 4:36

She has that expression because she cannot believe someone is actually that retarded.

this.

Right. It's evidence that they're liars. Why would they feel the need to lie about something like that? Isn't going to the moon a good enough feat in itself? Fool me once.

Terrific attitude

Im not really sure of what you are implying with your answer.

Flying to the moon completely shits on climbing Mount Everest in terms of accomplishment.

And whilst it is more expensive today as well, surely with the circa 50 years of advanced technology surely it would be much safer than flying to the moon 50 years ago.

No one went to the moon in a machine with the computing power of my microwave.

I know, but i think this is what Tempemagus was talking about in a not too subtile way.

I should have mentioned that, posted without thinking, sorry.

There was a plot to nuke the moon though, but i don't know if they did that for real.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_A119

Yes they crashed rocket into it, and according to NASA it vibrated or 'rang like a bell' for 30 mins. Hollow