NASA never landed on the Moon - Apollo Hoax

[Gali]

This Mindshock Podcast host is a lot like me and thinks logically and critically in the same way I do, without taking any "authoritative source" on faith like Christians and Atheists do. His/Her analysis is briliant, he or she applies skepticism and critical thinking to all sides, like I do, not just to the side he or she doesn't like, like 99.99 percent of people do. I'm not sure if the host is male or female, that's why I said "he or she". lol

"NASA'S APOLLO MISSIONS - MYTH or REALITY? (MINDSHOCK PODCAST)

A logical introduction into the Moon Landing Conspiracy. Did NASA really put men on the moon during the Apollo Missions, or was it a grand hoax and deception? Examining all the rabbit holes in comprehensive, logical fashion. A NASA insider joins us for his perspective."

Bullshido hates science because it is hard. But love youtube fiction. They hate physics, math.

Contents
1 Origins
2 Claimed motives of the United States and NASA
2.1 Space Race
2.2 NASA funding and prestige
2.3 Vietnam War
3 Hoax claims and rebuttals
3.1 Number of conspirators involved
3.2 Photographic and film oddities
3.3 Environment
3.4 Mechanical issues
3.5 Transmissions
3.6 Missing data
3.6.1 Tapes
3.6.2 Blueprints
3.7 NASA technology compared to USSR
3.8 Technology used by NASA
3.9 Deaths of NASA personnel
3.10 NASA response
3.11 Alleged Stanley Kubrick involvement
3.12 Academic work
3.13 MythBusters special
4 Third-party evidence of Moon landings
4.1 Imaging the landing sites
4.2 Moon rocks
4.3 Missions tracked by independent parties
4.4 Retroreflectors
5 Public opinion
6 See also
7 Notes
8 Citations
9 References
10 Further reading
11 External links
11.1 Television specials

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_land ... n_specials

[Winston]

"The moon landings of the 60s & 70s are among the few false events we can prove. Knowing this also provides insight into other aspects of what is called space and low earth orbit. It seems, currently, that no one has ever been beyond our atmosphere and that space, Sun and Moon have been intentionally Misdescribed. In my view the moon is not a rock in space and could not be walked on even if man could get there. The moon is an illusion but not because it does not exit but because it is Misdescribed by intention to deny us all knowledge of where we exist.

https://www.Crrow777Radio.com. Hope to see you there. All other Crow websites are FRAUD and there are now at least 10 of them!"

[Winston]

This Mindshock Podcast host is a lot like me and thinks logically and critically in the same way I do, without taking any "authoritative source" on faith like Christians and Atheists do. His/Her analysis is briliant, he or she applies skepticism and critical thinking to all sides, like I do, not just to the side he or she doesn't like, like 99.99 percent of people do. I'm not sure if the host is male or female, that's why I said "he or she". lol

"NASA'S APOLLO MISSIONS - MYTH or REALITY? (MINDSHOCK PODCAST)

A logical introduction into the Moon Landing Conspiracy. Did NASA really put men on the moon during the Apollo Missions, or was it a grand hoax and deception? Examining all the rabbit holes in comprehensive, logical fashion. A NASA insider joins us for his perspective."

Bullshido hates science because it is hard. But love youtube fiction. They hate physics, math.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_land ... n_specials

You didn't even watch the Mindshock podcast. The person behind it is a true example of objectivity, logic, and critical thinking on both sides. No bullshido at all. You are not of course.

So Thomas Baron gets killed at a train crossing in his car just before he testifies to Congress and reveals damaging info about the Apollo program? And Wikipedia says:

Baron was a quality control inspector who wrote a report critical of the Apollo program and was an outspoken critic of NASA's safety record after the Apollo 1 fire. Baron and his family were killed as their car was struck by a train at a train crossing. The deaths were an accident.[140][141]

So it was just an "accident" and Wikipedia says so and that settles it? lol. What are the odds that someone that threatens NASA in Congress has a convenient accident? Even you admit that powerful people and organizations kill people and make it look like an accident all the time. Mafia does it, government does it, military does it, etc. Everyone knows that, even conspiracy deniers know that. Why would NASA kill Baron if he wasn't a threat? Obviously he was. What are the odds that a man who is a threat to NASA decides to park his car on the train track and his wife and daughter sit there and wait for the train to hit them and kill them for no reason at all, just to save NASA? That's dumber than shit and you know it. They didn't even try to get out of the car. All three just sit there and wait for the train to hit them, for no reason at all. No one buys that. Obviously Wikipedia is just dismissing it by lying and claiming it was an "accident". So how credible is Wikipedia if they will lie to protect the establishment, which is their job of course, so how much can you trust them?

[Winston]

For science types like Gali, but are not biased toward the establishment:

Here is a great parallax analysis that proves the Apollo Moon landing photos to be a fake with fake background. This is very scientific. But scientism types like Gali who worship the establishment will not be able to process it because they can only use science to DEFEND the establishment, but never to oppose it.

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

[Winston]

Richard Hall and Andrew Johnson analyze the Apollo Moon Hoax on Rich Planet TV. Covers a lot of issues objectively and scientifically.

[Winston]

LOL @Gali do you actually believe that this went to the Moon? Would you bet your life on it? LOL! ROTFL!



Eric Dubay:

Take a second to honestly observe the following picture and tell me what this looks like to you? If you said a bunch of cardboard, construction paper, curtain rods, gold tape and foil, you would be correct. If instead you said The National Aeronautics and Space Administrations highest technological achievement, incapable of being reproduced today, the Apollo 11 Lunar Lander, then you would also be correct. Most unbiased viewers would assume your average high school art class could construct this contraption without much struggle, but official NASA spokesman and astronaut Don Petit assures us that actually this 1969 technology is so advanced that even with their multi-billion dollar yearly budget, they cannot for the life of them recreate it now. "I'd go back to the Moon in a nano-second," Don informs us, "but NASA destroyed that technology and its a painful process to build it back again."

Firstly, why on Earth would NASA destroy the original Apollo Lunar Landers? The historic first crafts that landed men on the Moon, the supposed most incredible achievements of mankind, and they irreparably destroyed them so that they could not be replicated even after 50 years? Could it be because they didn't want future generations able to visit museums and see these laughable 1960s attempts at high-tech-looking space vehicles? And what other 1960s technology is so advanced and expensive that it cannot be recreated easily and far better now than way back then?

If you still believe man has actually walked on the Moon and rovers are rolling around on Mars, please do me, yourself, and the rest of humanity a favor and watch my following presentation, The NASA Moon and Mars Landing Hoaxes: https://odysee.com/@EricDubay:c/TheNASA ... Landings:1

[Gali]

Why do you not check the counter arguments if you care so much?

Because drama is much more fun.

Why NASA hasn’t gone back to the Moon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-it-OH7pxK4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEZH_9nUFDg

[Winston]

Why do you not check the counter arguments if you care so much?

Because drama is much more fun.

Why NASA hasn’t gone back to the Moon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-it-OH7pxK4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEZH_9nUFDg

There are no counter arguments. Just excuses and lies. Why do you always trust authority? Because you are empty without God so the government and NASA and science are your God? lol

You didn't answer my question. Would you bet your life that that piece of junk that isn't even rain proof went to the moon? LOL

See the video above. You will feel like a fool afterward.

[Gali]

Why do you not check the counter arguments if you care so much?

Because drama is much more fun.

Why NASA hasn’t gone back to the Moon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-it-OH7pxK4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEZH_9nUFDg

There are no counter arguments. Just excuses and lies. Why do you always trust authority? Because you are empty without God so the government and NASA and science are your God? lol

You didn't answer my question. Would you bet your life that that piece of junk that isn't even rain proof went to the moon? LOL

See the video above. You will feel like a fool afterward.

Your Asperger's shines. Asking that kind of questions shows your primitive thinking.

Why would the hoaxers who created 2001 Odysee even build that junk looking thing? Think about it but turn off the bias.

[Gali]

#PatrickBetDavid #Valuetainment
Was The Moon Landing Faked? This Man Believes It Was
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kiBvdYO4yw

[Winston]

WOULD OTHER AGENCIES BLOW THE WHISTLE ON NASA FOR FAKING MOON LANDING? (MINDSHOCK PODCAST CLIPS)

Examining the common Straw Man argument that other agencies/other countries would blow the whistle on NASA/United States if they could tell the moon landing was a hoax.

[Winston]

I just heard Bart Sibrel in his interviews make a very good point that is very eye opening and worth emphasizing and noting:

He said several engineers have files a Freedom of Information Act to NASA for the original Apollo blueprints to find out how they got to the Moon in 1969 because they were very curious as to how they did it, since there is no way to get there today. The thing is, the Apollo blueprints are not classified documents. But NASA claims they are either missing or destroyed, so they are unable to produce them. This is a VERY BIG RED FLAG and SMOKING GUN if you think about it. You see, the government has never had a problem preserving something if it wants to. They preserved the Declaration of Independence from 1776. They preserved Shakespeare's manuscripts. They even preserved ancient Bible manuscripts. Museums preserve many ancient artifacts too. So why can't NASA preserve the Apollo blueprints from 1969 or the Apollo telemetry tapes that IMAX wanted to get to make IMAX films from? It's a very good question that blows this thing wide open.

The answer is obvious: Either the blueprints are a fraud and would be easily spotted as bogus by any engineer. Or they never existed at all. Either way, it reveals the Apollo program to be a hoax for sure. There's no way around this. It's a very clear smoking gun. Try going to NASA and asking to see the Apollo blueprints and you will see for yourself. They are definitely hiding something for sure. Even @Gali cannot deny this and is forced to admit that Apollo is a hoax. He has to concede. There's no way out. This is VERY obvious to anyone who can think or reason and is honest and not playing games. Even Gali can see this, but I suspect he's playing games here and is not serious.

However, this is just one of many smoking guns and red flags that Apollo was a hoax. Having many smoking guns and red flags is way beyond the necessary proof to prove that the moon landing was a hoax. So in a sense, it's been proven 1000 percent. So even Gali cannot deny it, if he's honest that is. He may not be it seems. He doesn't care about the truth, only in ridiculing people, which is not logical since ridicule does not prove anything.

Also, Sibrel said that in Japan many aerospace engineers believe that NASA never went to the moon. They saw the lunar lander and said it was a joke and NASA's math is easily debunked by any high school math teacher. If you talk to them in private and off the record, like Sibrel did, they will tell you that. But of course they will not say it publicly because it would risk their job and anger Americans and cause them to lose face. But in private, that's what they think. That should speak volumes.

So it's not true that all engineers believe the moon landings were real. Only Americans do. Foreigners do not have that bias. Sibrel said that the moon landing was a positive conspiracy, one that Americans are proud of, so they cannot analyze it or criticize it or let it go, that's the major problem. But foreign engineers do not have such a bias of course.

[publicduende]

@Winston

I think this long thread should be closed. The strongest piece of evidence there is is that, if the US really did land to the moon with 1960s technology, by now we would be having multiple colonies on the moon and even on Mars, including mining and other very lucractive activities.

Most people would understand why the US was compelled to put up a show (a Kubrick show at that!) to feign technological superiority to the Soviets and give the public something to cheer about, after the Vietnam war disaster.

[Winston]

@Winston

I think this long thread should be closed. The strongest piece of evidence there is is that, if the US really did land to the moon with 1960s technology, by now we would be having multiple colonies on the moon and even on Mars, including mining and other very lucractive activities.

Most people would understand why the US was compelled to put up a show (a Kubrick show at that!) to feign technological superiority to the Soviets and give the public something to cheer about, after the Vietnam war disaster.

That's good argument too. A very strong one. Like I said, there are many smoking guns and red flags such as this, not just a few. So the case is very solid and airtight that the Apollo landings were a hoax. Even if they were real, for sure the video and photos we were shown was faked for some reason. Some say it was to cover up something, that's what Richard Hoagland claims. But he is biased and worked for NASA and wants the moon missions to be real.

Why close this thread though? Shouldn't we allow open discussion so others can chime in? I hope though that people have something constructive to say, rather than just ridicule or mockery, which is useless and proves nothing. Better to come up with logical arguments that make sense, then ridicule anyone who challenges your beliefs or the status quo.

[Gali]

@Winston

I think this long thread should be closed. The strongest piece of evidence there is is that, if the US really did land to the moon with 1960s technology, by now we would be having multiple colonies on the moon and even on Mars, including mining and other very lucractive activities.

Most people would understand why the US was compelled to put up a show (a Kubrick show at that!) to feign technological superiority to the Soviets and give the public something to cheer about, after the Vietnam war disaster.

Right same with the Russians

It is all a hoax

The Soviet space program pioneered many aspects of space exploration:

1957: First intercontinental ballistic missile and orbital launch vehicle, the R-7 Semyorka.
1957: First satellite, Sputnik 1.
1957: First animal in Earth orbit, the dog Laika on Sputnik 2.
1959: First rocket ignition in Earth orbit, first man-made object to escape Earth's gravity, Luna 1.
1959: First data communications, or telemetry, to and from outer space, Luna 1.
1959: First man-made object to pass near the Moon, first man-made object in Heliocentric orbit, Luna 1.
1959: First probe to impact the Moon, Luna 2.
1959: First images of the moon's far side, Luna 3.
1960: First animals to safely return from Earth orbit, the dogs Belka and Strelka on Sputnik 5.
1961: First probe launched to Venus, Venera 1.
1961: First person in space (International definition) and in Earth orbit, Yuri Gagarin on Vostok 1, Vostok program.
1961: First person to spend over 24 hours in space Gherman Titov, Vostok 2 (also first person to sleep in space).
1962: First dual crewed spaceflight, Vostok 3 and Vostok 4.
1962: First probe launched to Mars, Mars 1.
1963: First woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova, Vostok 6.
1964: First multi-person crew (3), Voskhod 1.
1965: First extra-vehicular activity (EVA), by Alexsei Leonov,[32] Voskhod 2.
1965: First radio telescope in space, Zond 3.
1965: First probe to hit another planet of the Solar System (Venus), Venera 3.
1966: First probe to make a soft landing on and transmit from the surface of the Moon, Luna 9.
1966: First probe in lunar orbit, Luna 10.
1966: first image of the whole Earth disk, Molniya 1.[33]
1967: First uncrewed rendezvous and docking, Cosmos 186/Cosmos 188.
1968: First living beings to reach the Moon (circumlunar flights) and return unharmed to Earth, Russian tortoises and other lifeforms on Zond 5.
1969: First docking between two crewed craft in Earth orbit and exchange of crews, Soyuz 4 and Soyuz 5.
1970: First soil samples automatically extracted and returned to Earth from another celestial body, Luna 16.
1970: First robotic space rover, Lunokhod 1 on the Moon.
1970: First full interplanetary travel with a soft landing and useful data transmission. Data received from the surface of another planet of the Solar System (Venus), Venera 7
1971: First space station, Salyut 1.
1971: First probe to impact the surface of Mars, Mars 2.
1971: First probe to land on Mars, Mars 3.
1971: First armed space station, Almaz.
1975: First probe to orbit Venus, to make a soft landing on Venus, first photos from the surface of Venus, Venera 9.
1980: First Hispanic and Black person in space, Arnaldo Tamayo Méndez on Soyuz 38.
1984: First woman to walk in space, Svetlana Savitskaya (Salyut 7 space station).
1986: First crew to visit two separate space stations (Mir and Salyut 7).
1986: First probes to deploy robotic balloons into Venus atmosphere and to return pictures of a comet during close flyby Vega 1, Vega 2.
1986: First permanently crewed space station, Mir, 1986–2001, with a permanent presence on board (1989–1999).
1987: First crew to spend over one year in space, Vladimir Titov and Musa Manarov on board of Soyuz TM-4 - Mir.
1988: First fully automated flight of a spaceplane (Buran).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_sp ... and_Vostok