The "astronauts" can't even quickly agree on whether or not they can see stars from the moon. NASA in Hebrew means 'to deceive'. I don't see how anybody could watch this and still believe they went to the moon. And they claim to have "lost" the telemetry data they used to get there. The comedy of errors and gafs are too numerous to mention.
'because whale oil could no longer be used for the production of new high-quality tapes...'? riiiight.... "in the early 1980s NASA was unable to get hold of new high-quality tapes. The original tapes had been manufactured using whale oil, which was now banned, and new tapes made with synthetic oil were not as durable. By that time NASA’s satellite imaging surveys were generating so much data that it was forced to reuse 200,000 old tapes. The Apollo tapes were among those reused....." - from any archivist's point of view this is cr_p.
NASA's news conference to announce that it had lost some of the data? there was a growing number of people asking uncomfortable questions, and a public admission of a 'mistake' would have worked better than official silence.
all-in-all the alleged moon landings served a vital political purpose: an endless, deadly 'game' of one-upmanship with the Russians. let's see what'll come out of Kissinger's archives!
mary-lou, Your comment prompted a little googling from me and I discovered this fascinating post about tracking down the tapes - which even still might be out there. Before TV broadcast, the imagery from the moon landings was sent to three different locations (Goldstone, California; Honeysuckle Creek near Canberra and Parkes, NSW) so there were more than one set of tapes. I knew vaguely Australia had a role in the broadcast of the moon landings with the Parkes Observatory but I really had no clue - it's still all a bit convoluted (perhaps suspiciously so??) and I'm not bothered to try to make sense of it all but it seems we had quite a lot to do with the broadcasting and here's an interesting fact - unless it's all a load of BS!
Australia received the imagery of the moon landings 300 milliseconds before the rest of the world!
There is further explanation given beyond the ostensible problems with the synthetic oil (I'm not necessarily denying complete BS) and that is that the telemetry was never intended to be the primary archival media and I think this is a perfectly reasonable claim. The thing is it's not as if the imagery itself is lost, it's just the imagery in a particular form.
"You can imagine how we felt. To understand why the tapes were treated this way, it’s important to realise that they were never intended to be the primary archival media. In fact, there was never any expectation that the magnetic data would survive more than a few decades. They were only meant to act as backups for the real-time communications relays and other data. If there was a failure during a mission, the tapes could be used to recover the information. If however, all went well, then the tapes were no longer necessary. All the vital information was extracted in real-time and archived for analysis at the relevant NASA centres. The TV was successfully seen by the world and the scan-converted video was properly recorded onto archival b/w film that would last for centuries. Few people outside of the tracking stations were even aware of the SSTV or how much better it was. As far as everyone was concerned, all the data was believed to be properly archived – at least until we came along."
big TQ for all the research, much appreciated. it's just that some of it is so skewed: when NASA wants to show us something they publish these gorgeous blue marble-images and others, but when others want to research (the same) imagery it becomes a total maze of arguments and counter-arguments, properly archived or not. which doesn't help navigating the trustworthy-department.
Yes it's tricky as we know NASA lies very big time with the example of the Challenger disaster fake, however, whatever anomalies there might seem to be with the moon landings I think that in general the purported evidence overwhelmingly favours real.
Thanks for this info It will take time to get thru it. I'm in the learning phase as I told you before. One question, on this
"there is no atmosphere on the moon so you would not get billowing clouds of dust like you'd get on Earth."
What does the LEM do to soft land on the moon? If there is no atmosphere, what would it thrust push against? It wouldn't be able to push against the surface until coming very close to it, seems too late to me, and parachutes would not work of course with no atmosphere. Maybe on Mars parachutes would have some value and if landers were encased in a bubble that would bounce until stationary.
Later, and take your time, sorry it's a lot of work, can you debunk this vid, some of the points may or may not be true so those points are not bunkable nor debunkable so you can skip them.
PM, what I highly recommend is the Moon Machines series, I found it fascinating. The only reason I started looking at the moon landings was to determine if they were fake or not and space travel is really not my thing at all, however, I cannot help feeling awe at the moon landings and the incredible path taken to get there. There are six 45-min videos on each "machine" - Saturn V rocket, Navigation computer, Command module, Lunar module, Rover, Spacesuit.
Oh God, PM, I don't know a lot about the moon landings ... but, in fact, it's a certain humility in that area that makes me a better analyst than those who say we didn't go. These are my two rules of critical thinking:
1. Aim to prove your hypothesis wrong (which means where there's a debunking trail follow it to the end)
2. Confine analysis to the irrefutable facts in the first instance
The disbelievers of the moon landings do not follow those rules. They obviously don't look up whatever they doubt to see if there's an explanation and they don't identify the irrefutable facts in the first instance. Rather they wax lyrical about physics-related stuff they are not sufficiently well-versed in.
My eyes glaze over with physics stuff so I look at things I know I can understand and see how they line up. What I can understand:
--- Every claim or question with regard to fakery has been addressed by Apollo enthusiasts satisfactorily in my opinion and wherever I've looked I haven't seen any counter refutation of it.
--- Hours of audio between astronauts and mission control would be very difficult to fake and we have no evidence of any fakery - it amazes me how people just say with a dismissive wave, "Oh that could be faked." Could it? I'd love to see someone try to fake that audio, I really would. And if they did fake it why would they fake hours and hours of it? That would be 100% against psyop MO. Bottom line: there's no evidence of fakery in the audio and the claim that it could be faked holds zero water.
--- The moon sky is black day and night. This is H-U-G-E, absolutely huge. The astronauts went at lunar dawn so what we have so alien to terrestrial conditions is a brightly-lit lunar surface against a black sky ... and we have it over and over and over again.
--- The lunar surface simply looks different from anywhere on earth - the surface does not look like desert or anywhere else - and we have images from the Apollo missions as well as the unmanned missions all lining up. We might say the unmanned missions have simply continued the fraud in the same way medical fraud goes on and on and on, however, scientists and doctors challenged germ theory, virology and vaccinology from the getgo but have been simply been ignored while there are no experts challenging the moon landings as far as I can tell.
With regard to the Bart Sibrel video just look up whatever claim you find such as "should have been stars in the photos" and you'll find a response.
People who disbelieve the moon landings are independent thinkers and it's great to be an independent thinker but we shouldn't be TOO independent, we need to check what we think as much as we can against what other people better-versed in the subject than ourselves are saying. We all know, of course, about relying on experts ... but at the same time there are people out there who know more on certain subjects than we do, that is a simple fact!
Ok thanks and appreciate it. Without finding out how the LEM lands I'm just stuck. There needs to be a simple explanation, how does it fall and land without crashing? What keeps it in control and how if there is no atmosphere to thrust against can it land, parachute from, or fall as a bouncy ball (which would likely kill the occupants). If you dont know thats ok, but for me that's a dead end for landing on the moon until I can get a logical answer-but today is nearly my first day looking at it so all ears.
According to NASA the LEM was traveling at a speed of 10,000mph in moon orbit, 50000 feet up. And within minutes it comes to complete stop-not even a jerk. Here on earth the planes flying at 180mph and with the help of friction on the runway they need 6000-8000 ft to stop. The LEM did not hover like a helicopter (not possible on the moon, anyway, as it has no air/atmosphere). You can hear the astronauts talking to mission control but you cannot even hear a murmur from the 10,000lbf rocket engine.
Submarines need water to move. airplanes need air to move. there was no force to react against in moon orbit except the gravity of the moon. rockets need a medium to react against. you cant slow down or take off with rockets when landing on the moon.
Here's an explanation, PM, but, as I say, physics is not my thing so I don't know if it satisfies you but there are obviously people interested in the subject you can ask. If I had to rely on my understanding of physics to determine if the moon landings were real I couldn't do it but I don't think I have to. I guess we're all different kinds of thinkers and my approach is just to look for what I can see is very compelling and accept that there are certain things I don't understand whereas other people say, "This makes no sense to me so I don't believe it." That's my twin sister.
If you want to land on the Moon then you need a craft that doesn’t require air to push against. That leaves out things with wings or rotors since there’s no air for them to generate lift from. Instead you need something rocket-propelled since rocket thrust comes from the exhaust pushing against the inside of whatever it’s in, all except the hole that it’s escaping by - which amounts to a net thrust in the opposite direction to the rocket exhaust.
From 5200ft at each mention of footage vs time I calculated the ft/sec speed
5200 to 4200 83 ft/s
4200 to 3000 150 ft/sec
3000 to 2000 71 ft/sec
2000 to 1600 29 ft/sec
1600 to 1000 120 ft/sec
1000 to 700 19 ft/sec
700 to 540 33 ft sec
540 to 400 16 ft/sec
400 to 100 4 ft/sec
I guess with lower gravity and no ear popping it would be easier to handle this rocky ride. But why is there no sound of the jet thruster from the cockpit, the whole shebang should be shaking and baking their helmets?
Cronkite doesn't get very excited does he? He is a Free Mason though:
Alumni from his Lodge include: Walt Disney, John Wayne; newsmen Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, John Cameron Swayze, Willard Scott and Chet Huntley; entertainers Dick and Tommy Smothers....
All those guys would have been in on the JFK fakery and the Challenger disaster fakery and all the rest of them ... but not on the moon landings fake cos ... ! With regard to the noise and shaking, Point 11 in the article should be helpful. It's about ascent rather than descent but I think the same principles apply.
At 450 says, "picking up some dust", which means the thruster is blowing up dust from the ground, so why isn't there dust on the lander legs was one question.
Hi Petra! I've just read your post about Dave McGowan and saw this right afterwards. I admit from the get-go that this is just going to be my own highly biased personal opinion and that I have seen both of Mazzucco's so called "documentaries." I watched them only because I'd already heard both the accusation and the rebuttals in the story of his outing of the secret plan to capture samples of chem spray at altitude, by Rosario Marcianò and his group. I thought that was such a slimy, underhanded, thing to do and it sounded like something that would be done by someone 'under orders' to do it. That's why I wanted to see the so called "docs." I wanted to see whether they screamed "controlled opposition" or not. Both of them did.
Without typing it all out with one finger on my phone, I'll just say that I subscribe to the Cluesforum version of 9/11. No planes, no dead or injured, buildings empty for a long time before that day, etc. As for the other two sites that day, same kind of theater. 🎭Nothing more than demolitions dressed up as "terrorist" attacks and pushed out to the public, in total collusion with the media.
Unlike you, I don't believe that the United States ever went to the moon, but you're a very intelligent woman and I'm sure you have reasons why you believe this.
My comment is about Mazzucco though, so I'll get on with it.
Since Mazzucco has put out too much (dis) information to go over, I'll just say that I can see only two possibilities. One is that the man is gullible and naïve. The second is that he's controlled opposition. I vote cont opp, despite the fact that the term is thrown around a lot.
What he did to Marcianò's group, plus his two films being so full of misleading baloney, leave me with only one conclusion to come to.
That is, that he's doing these jobs because he's been told to do them. That makes him someone I could never trust, under any circumstances.
I'm sorry for this long comment! Frankly, I'm surprised I was even able to write it, because I fell down in my house yesterday evening and it's left me feeling like I've been in battle or something. Got a big bump on my head from banging it on the the table as I fell, along with other injuries, so if I didn't make sense in my writing, at least I've got an excuse this time! 😂
Anyway, just know that I read all of your posts, I really like them, and I share them too. It's just the commenting that's a problem for me, but at least you don't have to read a "War and Peace" length comment on every post!!
Thanks again for this and for the McGowan post (and all the rest too)!! See you next time!! Ciao!! 🙂🙋🏻♀️
Thanks Opinionist and thanks for sharing my posts. I vote controlled opp too. Not heard of Rosario Marciano but I'll look him up. Sorry you banged yourself up and hope you feel better soon. Yes, I'm with Clues Forum on 9/11 and many other events too (though not the moon landings obviously) and CF was the first place I got the idea of no deaths. I'm intrigued by Simon Shack's claim that the footage of the twin tower destructions was faked to hide the too obvious controlled demolition and I think he might be right.
It's interesting the controlled opp stuff Italians push out. I was completely spellbound by a video talking about various Italians involved in the JFK assassination including the father of a guy who emigrated to Australia and whose family was friends with mine - I'm like what!!?? I know the son of a man who was involved in the JFK assassination?? ... but then I realised the assassination was faked and I'm like why are Italian propagandists pushing out this stuff?
Hi! Thanks very much for your kind wishes for me after this fall!! Unfortunately, I'm not a kid any longer, so it was bad and scary!
I'm really sorry for assuming that you knew what I was talking about regarding Rosario Marcianò. Very foolish of me. Since I have brought him up though, if you have any interest at all in the subject of both chem spraying and geo engineering (two separate projects, it seems) or other psyops and things going on in Italy, I highly recommend the guy!! He looks like a professor (😂) and he's been absolutely persecuted by the Italian government, ever since he reported on the Italian "victim" at Bataclan and after his excellent reporting on the Morandi Bridge deliberate collapse. His YT channel is his name (Rosario Marcianò) and he's got a blog called Tanker Enemy, which I believe he links to on his YT channel. I'll see if I can find a link and send it to you here.
I'm SO GLAD you feel the same way I do about Cluesforum!!!! They've both taught and confirmed so many things over the years!! Speaking of Simon's ideas of how it was done and his belief about a military grade smoke screen being used, well, GET THIS!! Within the past month, I've seen a video of a police official speaking about some current event which I don't remember at the moment, but I'm going to find it in my downloads. The police guy is talking about the fact that his police department is going carry out some sort of local police operation, using a "smoke screen to block people from getting involved." I nearly fell off my chair when I heard it!!
As far as Italians involved in psyops go, I'm embarrassed to admit that I hadn't even thought about the subject until about 7 years ago and I realized just how many there are here and how many there always have been. Bologna, for example, and also PLENTY of so called "true crime" theater!! One of the most incredible things I've seen was a so called documentary about the formerly exiled Savoia family and the "shooting" of the young German guy. It was actually a celebration of Savoia having reached the level of Master Mason in Freemasonry and the evidence was blatant and everywhere. Just incredible how much of this stuff goes on here and how oblivious I used to be about it!! I also fully agree with you about the Kennedy stories being totally fake!! All the rest you've named too!!
Before I let you go, let me tell you that I wrote you another comment and linked a video that's already cued up to the last three minutes. I checked the link and it DOES work, even though it appears in black letters instead of blue.
I really, really, appreciate you taking the time to respond to me!! I know you're very busy and I feel bad about writing so much!! I'll let you go. Thanks for EVERYTHING!! Bye for now!! 🙂🌞🙂🌞🙂
OMG! I read about the German guy if its the one I'm thinking of. I thought it was real. His parents are doctors and the father says how the mother got cancer due to the stress and then he realised how stress causes cancer. Are you sure that's fake assuming its the same one? It may be a different one although cone to think of it it sounded strange, a little implausible.
Petra, you’re the first person I’ve seen to say 9/11 was fake but moon landings were real. It takes all kinds! I think it’s much easier to doubt the moon landings as there’s much less evidence of “independent” verification to be discarded. That is, no “amateur videos” of any moon landing, no civilian “eyewitness accounts” of any astronaut stepping on the moon.
Yes, apart from two friends (one who sadly died last year) who are open to my views I'm not aware of anyone online who recognises staged death and injury on 9/11 and the moon landings as real although I know people who believe the moon landings and recognise 9/11 as an inside job.
The thing is though I use exactly the same methodology to determine my conclusions and what we can clearly see is that the disbelievers of the moon landings don't use the correct methodology. If you don't use the correct methodology right off the bat your conclusions are likely to be faulty.
These are the two simple rules of critical thinking I follow, Alex, and if you find fault with them or think you have better or additional ones I need to follow, please let me know:
--- Aim to prove your hypothesis wrong which means checking to see where you might be wrong yourself but also checking whatever is said by others that opposes your hypothesis
--- Focus on the irrefutable facts in the first instance
The trouble with independent thinkers is that they can be too independent, they're not so concerned about what they can identify objectively as irrefutable fact that they can lay down to others and they don't bother checking everything said against what they believe to be true. Of course, it's true that you can lay down very clear facts to people and they simply refuse to recognise them or their significance but you still need to be sure that what you lay down as an irrefutable fact is indeed irrefutable.
So many disbelievers of the moon landings put forward arguments that have been debunked. And, yes, of course, so much of fact-checkers' alleged debunking is a load of codswallop but with regard to the moon landings this is simply not the case. Disbelievers venture into arcane areas they are simply not authoritative enough in while we can see that Apollo enthusiasts really do know their stuff.
What we see in the moon landings is complete internal consistency of purported evidence as well as complete consistency with expectations considering the completely alien lunar conditions which is corroborated by the imagery from the unmanned lunar landings.
To give an example of how disbelievers reason:
When I say that the lunar sky is black day and night and the extremely brightly-lit surface of the moon with no signs of multiple light sources against a black sky is perfectly consistent with expectations they say, "Oh but we don't know the conditions on the moon." This response doesn't work. Sure we know scientists have it totally wrong on germ theory but we simply have no reason to doubt what scientists say about a black sky day and night. Moreover, if it isn't black day and night the question is what colour is it? Is it blue as on earth and if so then it's going to be very difficult to fake it. It makes no sense to say, "We don't know the conditions on the moon," but that's always their response.
We shouldn't be going into arcane areas such as rocket science but rather looking at the basic science we can easily understand to check that that lines up ... and it does perfectly.
And it's the little as well as the big things that count. If an hypothesis is correct every single thing will support if not favour that hypothesis, that is the nature of reality. So whether it's a tiny thing or massive it counts in determining the correct hypothesis. Disbelievers question the lack of dust on the landing pads of the LEM, however:
1. The lack of dust is reasonably explained
2. In fact, there are small amounts of regolith particles that can only be seen on high res photos with the magnifying tool.
Dear God, when do they fake stuff like that in psyops? Even if it wasn't a psyop perpetrated with the usual Revelation-of-the-Method MO and they were trying to fake things as accurately as possible that's not how fakery is done. You don't fake things so they can hardly be seen.
Everywhere we turn we see absolutely perfect consistency with expectations so we simply have no reason to doubt the reality of the moon landings.
And where do we see psyop MO? In the people who say we didn't go such as the cartoonish Bill Kaysing and Dave McGowan. I really don't know what more people want.
James McCanney says that several cosmonauts and animals sent through the Van Allen belt came back "cooked", according to Soviet sources that cited it as the reason why they terminated their space program.
To claim that significant amounts of audio of natural conversation can be faked without detection we need some evidence of it ... and we don't have any. Not everything can be faked without detection willy nilly and certainly we would expect that hundreds of hours of faked natural conversation would show some sign of fakery somewhere but none has been identified. We also surely would not expect them to go to the trouble of faking hundreds of hours of audio. That makes absolutely no sense and would be so against psyop MO. Psyop MO is not about faking lots of stuff as well as possible, psyop MO is about faking stuff sloppily and rubbing it in our faces.
I invite you to randomly click in the various audio tracks of the hundreds of hours of Apollo audio provided below and see if you can find any signs of fakery.
The "astronauts" can't even quickly agree on whether or not they can see stars from the moon. NASA in Hebrew means 'to deceive'. I don't see how anybody could watch this and still believe they went to the moon. And they claim to have "lost" the telemetry data they used to get there. The comedy of errors and gafs are too numerous to mention.
NASA Fails Again & Again
https://rumble.com/v29e0ri-nasa-fails-again-and-again-space-is-fake-glitch-on-the-iss-.html
The loss of telemetry is addressed in Point 13 of the article, Mike. Why don't you take a look and come back.
'because whale oil could no longer be used for the production of new high-quality tapes...'? riiiight.... "in the early 1980s NASA was unable to get hold of new high-quality tapes. The original tapes had been manufactured using whale oil, which was now banned, and new tapes made with synthetic oil were not as durable. By that time NASA’s satellite imaging surveys were generating so much data that it was forced to reuse 200,000 old tapes. The Apollo tapes were among those reused....." - from any archivist's point of view this is cr_p.
NASA's news conference to announce that it had lost some of the data? there was a growing number of people asking uncomfortable questions, and a public admission of a 'mistake' would have worked better than official silence.
all-in-all the alleged moon landings served a vital political purpose: an endless, deadly 'game' of one-upmanship with the Russians. let's see what'll come out of Kissinger's archives!
mary-lou, Your comment prompted a little googling from me and I discovered this fascinating post about tracking down the tapes - which even still might be out there. Before TV broadcast, the imagery from the moon landings was sent to three different locations (Goldstone, California; Honeysuckle Creek near Canberra and Parkes, NSW) so there were more than one set of tapes. I knew vaguely Australia had a role in the broadcast of the moon landings with the Parkes Observatory but I really had no clue - it's still all a bit convoluted (perhaps suspiciously so??) and I'm not bothered to try to make sense of it all but it seems we had quite a lot to do with the broadcasting and here's an interesting fact - unless it's all a load of BS!
Australia received the imagery of the moon landings 300 milliseconds before the rest of the world!
There is further explanation given beyond the ostensible problems with the synthetic oil (I'm not necessarily denying complete BS) and that is that the telemetry was never intended to be the primary archival media and I think this is a perfectly reasonable claim. The thing is it's not as if the imagery itself is lost, it's just the imagery in a particular form.
https://blog.csiro.au/the-search-for-lost-apollo-11-tapes/
"You can imagine how we felt. To understand why the tapes were treated this way, it’s important to realise that they were never intended to be the primary archival media. In fact, there was never any expectation that the magnetic data would survive more than a few decades. They were only meant to act as backups for the real-time communications relays and other data. If there was a failure during a mission, the tapes could be used to recover the information. If however, all went well, then the tapes were no longer necessary. All the vital information was extracted in real-time and archived for analysis at the relevant NASA centres. The TV was successfully seen by the world and the scan-converted video was properly recorded onto archival b/w film that would last for centuries. Few people outside of the tracking stations were even aware of the SSTV or how much better it was. As far as everyone was concerned, all the data was believed to be properly archived – at least until we came along."
big TQ for all the research, much appreciated. it's just that some of it is so skewed: when NASA wants to show us something they publish these gorgeous blue marble-images and others, but when others want to research (the same) imagery it becomes a total maze of arguments and counter-arguments, properly archived or not. which doesn't help navigating the trustworthy-department.
Yes it's tricky as we know NASA lies very big time with the example of the Challenger disaster fake, however, whatever anomalies there might seem to be with the moon landings I think that in general the purported evidence overwhelmingly favours real.
politely disagree, but that's OK, your work and research's still very much appreciated!
To deceive in Hebrew is "Lehonot" (להונות). I don't believe they went to the moon, either, but let's try and get things right.
Thanks for this info It will take time to get thru it. I'm in the learning phase as I told you before. One question, on this
"there is no atmosphere on the moon so you would not get billowing clouds of dust like you'd get on Earth."
What does the LEM do to soft land on the moon? If there is no atmosphere, what would it thrust push against? It wouldn't be able to push against the surface until coming very close to it, seems too late to me, and parachutes would not work of course with no atmosphere. Maybe on Mars parachutes would have some value and if landers were encased in a bubble that would bounce until stationary.
Later, and take your time, sorry it's a lot of work, can you debunk this vid, some of the points may or may not be true so those points are not bunkable nor debunkable so you can skip them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=xciCJfbTvE4
Anyway, I know you know a lot about this so that would be helpful-only if you are interested for a future post, don't do it just for me!
PM, what I highly recommend is the Moon Machines series, I found it fascinating. The only reason I started looking at the moon landings was to determine if they were fake or not and space travel is really not my thing at all, however, I cannot help feeling awe at the moon landings and the incredible path taken to get there. There are six 45-min videos on each "machine" - Saturn V rocket, Navigation computer, Command module, Lunar module, Rover, Spacesuit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6syfevpG-1U&list=PLZJna6W59fFr04zJ3Pp3CJ4TtXMRkGPMV
Oh God, PM, I don't know a lot about the moon landings ... but, in fact, it's a certain humility in that area that makes me a better analyst than those who say we didn't go. These are my two rules of critical thinking:
1. Aim to prove your hypothesis wrong (which means where there's a debunking trail follow it to the end)
2. Confine analysis to the irrefutable facts in the first instance
The disbelievers of the moon landings do not follow those rules. They obviously don't look up whatever they doubt to see if there's an explanation and they don't identify the irrefutable facts in the first instance. Rather they wax lyrical about physics-related stuff they are not sufficiently well-versed in.
My eyes glaze over with physics stuff so I look at things I know I can understand and see how they line up. What I can understand:
--- Every claim or question with regard to fakery has been addressed by Apollo enthusiasts satisfactorily in my opinion and wherever I've looked I haven't seen any counter refutation of it.
--- Hours of audio between astronauts and mission control would be very difficult to fake and we have no evidence of any fakery - it amazes me how people just say with a dismissive wave, "Oh that could be faked." Could it? I'd love to see someone try to fake that audio, I really would. And if they did fake it why would they fake hours and hours of it? That would be 100% against psyop MO. Bottom line: there's no evidence of fakery in the audio and the claim that it could be faked holds zero water.
--- The moon sky is black day and night. This is H-U-G-E, absolutely huge. The astronauts went at lunar dawn so what we have so alien to terrestrial conditions is a brightly-lit lunar surface against a black sky ... and we have it over and over and over again.
--- The lunar surface simply looks different from anywhere on earth - the surface does not look like desert or anywhere else - and we have images from the Apollo missions as well as the unmanned missions all lining up. We might say the unmanned missions have simply continued the fraud in the same way medical fraud goes on and on and on, however, scientists and doctors challenged germ theory, virology and vaccinology from the getgo but have been simply been ignored while there are no experts challenging the moon landings as far as I can tell.
With regard to the Bart Sibrel video just look up whatever claim you find such as "should have been stars in the photos" and you'll find a response.
People who disbelieve the moon landings are independent thinkers and it's great to be an independent thinker but we shouldn't be TOO independent, we need to check what we think as much as we can against what other people better-versed in the subject than ourselves are saying. We all know, of course, about relying on experts ... but at the same time there are people out there who know more on certain subjects than we do, that is a simple fact!
Ok thanks and appreciate it. Without finding out how the LEM lands I'm just stuck. There needs to be a simple explanation, how does it fall and land without crashing? What keeps it in control and how if there is no atmosphere to thrust against can it land, parachute from, or fall as a bouncy ball (which would likely kill the occupants). If you dont know thats ok, but for me that's a dead end for landing on the moon until I can get a logical answer-but today is nearly my first day looking at it so all ears.
---------------------------------------------------------------
On line search finds this
According to NASA the LEM was traveling at a speed of 10,000mph in moon orbit, 50000 feet up. And within minutes it comes to complete stop-not even a jerk. Here on earth the planes flying at 180mph and with the help of friction on the runway they need 6000-8000 ft to stop. The LEM did not hover like a helicopter (not possible on the moon, anyway, as it has no air/atmosphere). You can hear the astronauts talking to mission control but you cannot even hear a murmur from the 10,000lbf rocket engine.
Submarines need water to move. airplanes need air to move. there was no force to react against in moon orbit except the gravity of the moon. rockets need a medium to react against. you cant slow down or take off with rockets when landing on the moon.
Here's an explanation, PM, but, as I say, physics is not my thing so I don't know if it satisfies you but there are obviously people interested in the subject you can ask. If I had to rely on my understanding of physics to determine if the moon landings were real I couldn't do it but I don't think I have to. I guess we're all different kinds of thinkers and my approach is just to look for what I can see is very compelling and accept that there are certain things I don't understand whereas other people say, "This makes no sense to me so I don't believe it." That's my twin sister.
https://www.quora.com/How-can-people-land-on-the-Moon-by-an-aircraft-since-there-is-no-atmosphere-on-the-Moon/answer/Douglas-Porter-17
If you want to land on the Moon then you need a craft that doesn’t require air to push against. That leaves out things with wings or rotors since there’s no air for them to generate lift from. Instead you need something rocket-propelled since rocket thrust comes from the exhaust pushing against the inside of whatever it’s in, all except the hole that it’s escaping by - which amounts to a net thrust in the opposite direction to the rocket exhaust.
Ok thanks what you say may be a good explanation. Here look at the actual landing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMF58ZP681A
From 5200ft at each mention of footage vs time I calculated the ft/sec speed
5200 to 4200 83 ft/s
4200 to 3000 150 ft/sec
3000 to 2000 71 ft/sec
2000 to 1600 29 ft/sec
1600 to 1000 120 ft/sec
1000 to 700 19 ft/sec
700 to 540 33 ft sec
540 to 400 16 ft/sec
400 to 100 4 ft/sec
I guess with lower gravity and no ear popping it would be easier to handle this rocky ride. But why is there no sound of the jet thruster from the cockpit, the whole shebang should be shaking and baking their helmets?
Cronkite doesn't get very excited does he? He is a Free Mason though:
https://www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/textfiles/family.html
Alumni from his Lodge include: Walt Disney, John Wayne; newsmen Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, John Cameron Swayze, Willard Scott and Chet Huntley; entertainers Dick and Tommy Smothers....
All those guys would have been in on the JFK fakery and the Challenger disaster fakery and all the rest of them ... but not on the moon landings fake cos ... ! With regard to the noise and shaking, Point 11 in the article should be helpful. It's about ascent rather than descent but I think the same principles apply.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMF58ZP681A
At 450 says, "picking up some dust", which means the thruster is blowing up dust from the ground, so why isn't there dust on the lander legs was one question.
The Challenger disaster was faked? 🤔
Some people never got Newtonian physics in the public fool system.
Hi Petra! I've just read your post about Dave McGowan and saw this right afterwards. I admit from the get-go that this is just going to be my own highly biased personal opinion and that I have seen both of Mazzucco's so called "documentaries." I watched them only because I'd already heard both the accusation and the rebuttals in the story of his outing of the secret plan to capture samples of chem spray at altitude, by Rosario Marcianò and his group. I thought that was such a slimy, underhanded, thing to do and it sounded like something that would be done by someone 'under orders' to do it. That's why I wanted to see the so called "docs." I wanted to see whether they screamed "controlled opposition" or not. Both of them did.
Without typing it all out with one finger on my phone, I'll just say that I subscribe to the Cluesforum version of 9/11. No planes, no dead or injured, buildings empty for a long time before that day, etc. As for the other two sites that day, same kind of theater. 🎭Nothing more than demolitions dressed up as "terrorist" attacks and pushed out to the public, in total collusion with the media.
Unlike you, I don't believe that the United States ever went to the moon, but you're a very intelligent woman and I'm sure you have reasons why you believe this.
My comment is about Mazzucco though, so I'll get on with it.
Since Mazzucco has put out too much (dis) information to go over, I'll just say that I can see only two possibilities. One is that the man is gullible and naïve. The second is that he's controlled opposition. I vote cont opp, despite the fact that the term is thrown around a lot.
What he did to Marcianò's group, plus his two films being so full of misleading baloney, leave me with only one conclusion to come to.
That is, that he's doing these jobs because he's been told to do them. That makes him someone I could never trust, under any circumstances.
I'm sorry for this long comment! Frankly, I'm surprised I was even able to write it, because I fell down in my house yesterday evening and it's left me feeling like I've been in battle or something. Got a big bump on my head from banging it on the the table as I fell, along with other injuries, so if I didn't make sense in my writing, at least I've got an excuse this time! 😂
Anyway, just know that I read all of your posts, I really like them, and I share them too. It's just the commenting that's a problem for me, but at least you don't have to read a "War and Peace" length comment on every post!!
Thanks again for this and for the McGowan post (and all the rest too)!! See you next time!! Ciao!! 🙂🙋🏻♀️
Thanks Opinionist and thanks for sharing my posts. I vote controlled opp too. Not heard of Rosario Marciano but I'll look him up. Sorry you banged yourself up and hope you feel better soon. Yes, I'm with Clues Forum on 9/11 and many other events too (though not the moon landings obviously) and CF was the first place I got the idea of no deaths. I'm intrigued by Simon Shack's claim that the footage of the twin tower destructions was faked to hide the too obvious controlled demolition and I think he might be right.
It's interesting the controlled opp stuff Italians push out. I was completely spellbound by a video talking about various Italians involved in the JFK assassination including the father of a guy who emigrated to Australia and whose family was friends with mine - I'm like what!!?? I know the son of a man who was involved in the JFK assassination?? ... but then I realised the assassination was faked and I'm like why are Italian propagandists pushing out this stuff?
Hi! Thanks very much for your kind wishes for me after this fall!! Unfortunately, I'm not a kid any longer, so it was bad and scary!
I'm really sorry for assuming that you knew what I was talking about regarding Rosario Marcianò. Very foolish of me. Since I have brought him up though, if you have any interest at all in the subject of both chem spraying and geo engineering (two separate projects, it seems) or other psyops and things going on in Italy, I highly recommend the guy!! He looks like a professor (😂) and he's been absolutely persecuted by the Italian government, ever since he reported on the Italian "victim" at Bataclan and after his excellent reporting on the Morandi Bridge deliberate collapse. His YT channel is his name (Rosario Marcianò) and he's got a blog called Tanker Enemy, which I believe he links to on his YT channel. I'll see if I can find a link and send it to you here.
I'm SO GLAD you feel the same way I do about Cluesforum!!!! They've both taught and confirmed so many things over the years!! Speaking of Simon's ideas of how it was done and his belief about a military grade smoke screen being used, well, GET THIS!! Within the past month, I've seen a video of a police official speaking about some current event which I don't remember at the moment, but I'm going to find it in my downloads. The police guy is talking about the fact that his police department is going carry out some sort of local police operation, using a "smoke screen to block people from getting involved." I nearly fell off my chair when I heard it!!
As far as Italians involved in psyops go, I'm embarrassed to admit that I hadn't even thought about the subject until about 7 years ago and I realized just how many there are here and how many there always have been. Bologna, for example, and also PLENTY of so called "true crime" theater!! One of the most incredible things I've seen was a so called documentary about the formerly exiled Savoia family and the "shooting" of the young German guy. It was actually a celebration of Savoia having reached the level of Master Mason in Freemasonry and the evidence was blatant and everywhere. Just incredible how much of this stuff goes on here and how oblivious I used to be about it!! I also fully agree with you about the Kennedy stories being totally fake!! All the rest you've named too!!
Before I let you go, let me tell you that I wrote you another comment and linked a video that's already cued up to the last three minutes. I checked the link and it DOES work, even though it appears in black letters instead of blue.
I really, really, appreciate you taking the time to respond to me!! I know you're very busy and I feel bad about writing so much!! I'll let you go. Thanks for EVERYTHING!! Bye for now!! 🙂🌞🙂🌞🙂
OMG! I read about the German guy if its the one I'm thinking of. I thought it was real. His parents are doctors and the father says how the mother got cancer due to the stress and then he realised how stress causes cancer. Are you sure that's fake assuming its the same one? It may be a different one although cone to think of it it sounded strange, a little implausible.
Petra, you’re the first person I’ve seen to say 9/11 was fake but moon landings were real. It takes all kinds! I think it’s much easier to doubt the moon landings as there’s much less evidence of “independent” verification to be discarded. That is, no “amateur videos” of any moon landing, no civilian “eyewitness accounts” of any astronaut stepping on the moon.
Yes, apart from two friends (one who sadly died last year) who are open to my views I'm not aware of anyone online who recognises staged death and injury on 9/11 and the moon landings as real although I know people who believe the moon landings and recognise 9/11 as an inside job.
The thing is though I use exactly the same methodology to determine my conclusions and what we can clearly see is that the disbelievers of the moon landings don't use the correct methodology. If you don't use the correct methodology right off the bat your conclusions are likely to be faulty.
These are the two simple rules of critical thinking I follow, Alex, and if you find fault with them or think you have better or additional ones I need to follow, please let me know:
--- Aim to prove your hypothesis wrong which means checking to see where you might be wrong yourself but also checking whatever is said by others that opposes your hypothesis
--- Focus on the irrefutable facts in the first instance
The trouble with independent thinkers is that they can be too independent, they're not so concerned about what they can identify objectively as irrefutable fact that they can lay down to others and they don't bother checking everything said against what they believe to be true. Of course, it's true that you can lay down very clear facts to people and they simply refuse to recognise them or their significance but you still need to be sure that what you lay down as an irrefutable fact is indeed irrefutable.
So many disbelievers of the moon landings put forward arguments that have been debunked. And, yes, of course, so much of fact-checkers' alleged debunking is a load of codswallop but with regard to the moon landings this is simply not the case. Disbelievers venture into arcane areas they are simply not authoritative enough in while we can see that Apollo enthusiasts really do know their stuff.
What we see in the moon landings is complete internal consistency of purported evidence as well as complete consistency with expectations considering the completely alien lunar conditions which is corroborated by the imagery from the unmanned lunar landings.
To give an example of how disbelievers reason:
When I say that the lunar sky is black day and night and the extremely brightly-lit surface of the moon with no signs of multiple light sources against a black sky is perfectly consistent with expectations they say, "Oh but we don't know the conditions on the moon." This response doesn't work. Sure we know scientists have it totally wrong on germ theory but we simply have no reason to doubt what scientists say about a black sky day and night. Moreover, if it isn't black day and night the question is what colour is it? Is it blue as on earth and if so then it's going to be very difficult to fake it. It makes no sense to say, "We don't know the conditions on the moon," but that's always their response.
We shouldn't be going into arcane areas such as rocket science but rather looking at the basic science we can easily understand to check that that lines up ... and it does perfectly.
And it's the little as well as the big things that count. If an hypothesis is correct every single thing will support if not favour that hypothesis, that is the nature of reality. So whether it's a tiny thing or massive it counts in determining the correct hypothesis. Disbelievers question the lack of dust on the landing pads of the LEM, however:
1. The lack of dust is reasonably explained
2. In fact, there are small amounts of regolith particles that can only be seen on high res photos with the magnifying tool.
Dear God, when do they fake stuff like that in psyops? Even if it wasn't a psyop perpetrated with the usual Revelation-of-the-Method MO and they were trying to fake things as accurately as possible that's not how fakery is done. You don't fake things so they can hardly be seen.
Everywhere we turn we see absolutely perfect consistency with expectations so we simply have no reason to doubt the reality of the moon landings.
And where do we see psyop MO? In the people who say we didn't go such as the cartoonish Bill Kaysing and Dave McGowan. I really don't know what more people want.
James McCanney says that several cosmonauts and animals sent through the Van Allen belt came back "cooked", according to Soviet sources that cited it as the reason why they terminated their space program.
And then there is Clif High's Deep Woo Woo stuff:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z78fcGbtZ94
To claim that significant amounts of audio of natural conversation can be faked without detection we need some evidence of it ... and we don't have any. Not everything can be faked without detection willy nilly and certainly we would expect that hundreds of hours of faked natural conversation would show some sign of fakery somewhere but none has been identified. We also surely would not expect them to go to the trouble of faking hundreds of hours of audio. That makes absolutely no sense and would be so against psyop MO. Psyop MO is not about faking lots of stuff as well as possible, psyop MO is about faking stuff sloppily and rubbing it in our faces.
I invite you to randomly click in the various audio tracks of the hundreds of hours of Apollo audio provided below and see if you can find any signs of fakery.
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/alsj-ApolloAudio.html